Jesus Christ is the most influential figure on the planet, with more than 2 billion worshippers worldwide and many more who fondly study his teachings. But what if he never existed? Many skeptics have posed this very question, and while true believers scoff at such suggestions, the debate is far from resolved. Jesus may have changed the world, but did he really walk the Earth?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Definitive evidence, J.P.? I can't go along with that. It doesn't hurt. But it doesn't close the case. Let's agree he's generally reliable. He's generally good about his sources. He's credible generally. Great. But it's not as if events never deviate from the norm.
You know, most 1st century Palestinians weren't crucified. In fact the percentage that were is exceedingly small. Maybe 1 person in 10,000. Is this definitive proof that Jesus wasn't crucified? It would be an exceptional deviation from the norm.
- JonC
December 17, 2008 2:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I will stick with “definitive” as Tacitus is more than “generally” reliable; he is considered to be unusually, if not exceptionally, reliable. Those who argue for a deviancy from a norm must argue it, not simply suppose it to be possible.
- JP Holding December 18, 2008 4:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This being the case, it makes the uncharacteristic error regarding the rank of Pilate stand out all the more. (See my comment to your fudging the data with procurator/prefect.)
Interpolations tend to stand out for what they say for themselves rather than what they contribute to the context. This is the case with the second part of A. 15.44. Previously Tacitus had carefully constructed an attack on Nero based on his manipulation of the evidence available. Interestingly he cannot say outright that Nero was responsible for the fire, so he leaves it to the fact that everyone suspected that he was and no matter what he did he couldn't shake that opinion. Then, suddenly we get the story of crispy crackly christians burning into the night in a glorious martyrdom which made even an unfriendly populace feel sympathy for them.
This whole passage undercuts Tacitus's efforts to vilify Nero, for it takes focus away from Nero's probable acts and unaccountably switches to naughty christians.
While crispy crackly christians is over the top for a Tacitus, the whole affair is significantly missing from Suetonius, who was much more in favor of the crispy crackly approach to the past. (And arguments from silence have a certain value, when the expected is not there.)
As the passage was not part of Tacitus's hatchet job on Nero, one would expect it to have been placed before he concluded his dealings with Nero on the fire in 15.44.1-2a, in order to sell his ideas about the ruler and not bury them.
The christ passage in 15.44 doesn't contribute to the context in which it is found. It actually interferes with it.
- spin December 22, 2008 11:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
There was no “fudging” on the procurator/prefect issue. The response I gave is that of credentialed historians. It is clear that you simply cannot respond to such authorities on their own terms.
The remainder of your commentary is little more than an imaginative construct. It perhaps does not occur to you – as it would to professional historians who have made Tacitus their life study – that Tacitus’ qualified assessment of Nero’s involvement in the fire reflects his characteristic care as a historian, in which he refuses to make judgments based on inadequate information and simply leaves it to the reader to decide.
In short, your contrived scenario makes it conveniently impossible for Tacitus to report such a judgment, because you have already assumed that he will only be trying to vilify Nero. So what is Tacitus supposed to do if indeed the origins of the fire were uncertain? Lie about it, so that he can satisfy your pre-determined categorical profession that his sole purpose is to vilify Nero? Are you going to argue next that Tactius could not report wrongdoing or blame to anyone else at all, because he was so obsessed with finding ways to vilify Nero?
As for things being missing from Suetonius: That is an argument from silence indeed, and of no value whatsoever. Compare Suetonius’ account of Nero’s reign with that of Tacitus’ account and tell me that they match in all respect save that one; then you will have a case. As it is, you are once again merely creating arbitrary categorical distinctions.
In addition, would you mind explaining why “crispy crackly christians is over the top for a Tacitus”? What would you rank as the three events Tacitus reports which would otherwise rank closest to “over the top” for him, and why? (Or is this simply another of your contrived arguments?)
Your comment re the placement of the passage “in order to sell his ideas about the ruler and not bury them” makes no sense whatsoever and is not explained in terms of the structure of Annals 15. Nor do you explain how the passage “doesn't contribute to the context in which it is found” or “interferes with it.” I will therefore assume that you are simply making up this argument out of thin air and do not have the ability to justify it.
- JP Holding December 31, 2008 10:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If Mr Holding understood the notion of appeal to authority, he would deal with the arguments of those authorities rather than simply continuing to appeal. But this is an exercise in apologetics: authority means he doesn't have to get confused with facts.
Perhaps had Mr Holding read some of the authorities on Tacitus and his descriptions of the Roman emperors, he might find that Tacitus was far from refusing to make judgments on them. He was merely indirect in the statement of his judgments. A good analysis of the issue is Inez Scott Ryberg, "Tacitus' Art of Innuendo", Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol.73 (1942), pp.384-404. He might get the flavor of Tacitus' approach by actually reading a few pages of the old Roman senator.
The fact that Suetonius doesn't mention the passage is surprising on a number of fronts: it is Suetonius who prefers more salacious materials rather than Tacitus, Suetonius had a position which gave him access to city records and yet doesn't admit to knowing about the christian connection to the fire, and he is the first of a long line of ancient writers who were apparently oblivious to that connection, including several knowledgeable christian fathers.
I'm impressed by Mr Holding's inability to understand my comments about the placement of the passage on the Neronian persecution. It is a simple matter: Tacitus is doing a hatchet job on Nero regarding the fire (and please refer to your authority for help there). He starts his discussion of the fire in A.15.38 with an aspersion, "A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain". It is possible that Nero was the cause of the fire. He sums up this issue in 15.44, "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order." The aim is to leave the reader with the notion that it is obvious that Nero was the cause. However with the current text, the reader isn't left with the last thought on the fire being that Nero couldn't shake the accusations, but a totally different issue, that of the persecution of the christians. This christian "anticlimax" undercuts and diffuses the whole careful attack on Nero.
As to Mr Holding's last comment, "I will therefore assume that you are simply making up this argument out of thin air and do not have the ability to justify it", the apologist may assume whatever he likes in order to further his cause. This is not so much a reflection of what he is making assumptions about, as of his efforts to win an argument regardless of content.
Mr Holding certainly can cite names of authorities he has collected in the decades of his apologetic activities, but shows little interest in what those authorities actually talk about and little desire to understand the primary sources or how an ancient writer such as Tacitus goes about unveiling his agenda.
- spin December 31, 2008 4:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Despite mr. spin, I do understand what “appeal to authority” is, and why he has misapprehended it in this case. Like Mr. Zindler, he fails to realize that he is in essence asking us to accept HIS authority over that of Tacitean scholars. In the end it remains an admission on his part that he is ill-prepared to deal with the issues, much less use those authorities to his advantage.
Re the appeal to Ryberg. I said nothing to suggest that Tacitus was “far from refusing to make judgments” on emperors; it seems that mr. spin cannot answer my real arguments, so he instead creates one for me that I did not make, since that is easier to refute.
Regarding Suetonius, I note that my question asking for comparisons of content remains completely unanswered, and thus is a tacit admission by mr. spin that he cannot justify his argument that there is anything unusual in the variability of accounts. Mr. spin vaguely appeals to Suetonius liking “more salacious materials” but what is “salacious” about a particular group being falsely accused of starting a fire is hard to say, especially when compared with the lurid atrocities performed by Nero at the same time. Not only so, but mr. spin doesn’t even bother to justify, by record, Suetonius’ alleged “preferences” in this regard or their specific nature, so I will assume he is simply making this up put of his hat.
Mr. spin also vaguely appeals to “access to city records,” for what purpose is far from clear, since it doesn’t seem likely that Nero’s gossip accusing Christians of starting the fire would be documented in “city records.” Perhaps mr. spin also thinks he can find copies of “Guiding Light” in his local city hall as well. We remain unenlightened in terms of why this is a meaningful silence in any writer, beyond “mr. spin says so.”
In terms of placement of the passage, I understood very well that this was simply yet another case of mr. spin blowing smoke and flashing mirrors. He clearly had no actual explanation to start with, and his present attempt at explanation reaches new heights of logical incoherence. That the “aim is to leave the reader with the notion that it is obvious that Nero was the cause” is not in any sense reduced by the recording of a false accusation by Nero against Christians; if anything, it fits right in with a picture of Nero as a party trying to evade responsibility. Why mr. spin thinks it necessary for something else to be the “last thought,” in order for Nero to remain a bad guy, is hard to say, but it seems likely that he couldn’t strain out a better explanation in order to preserve his contrived thesis. Bottom line: There is no “christian anticlimax” save in mr. spin’s imagination, just as I predicted.
In close, note well that mr. spin is clearly out of his league in confronting the claims of the “authorities” he so readily dismisses (in favor of his own unknown “authority”). I strongly suspect that he has never read any of their words, not even Ryberg’s, and merely collected that reference out of some library database he rushed to in a panic when he found that his arguments based on a plan English reading would not simply be accepted uncritically here by a bamboozled audience. In any event, not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44.
- JP Holding January 2, 2009 8:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There is no pleasing Mr Holding. He refuses to consult the original text, preferring to rely on appeals to authority. When one supplies even one reference for him to read, specifically on the issue of how Tacitus indirectly develops his criticism of his subjects, Mr Holding denies the value of secondary sources. No, wait, that's not correct: he doesn't really mind appeals to secondary sources. He simply claims that I haven't read mine, so that he doesn't need to either. He has dug his hole of appeal to authority and now he is trying to claw his way out with a no-holds-barred "it's not me appealing to authority, it's you" argument, while finishing his argument with "not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44". One cannot take this gormlessness seriously.
Ryberg, in the article I cited, deals with Tacitus' technique, saying "It is by various devices of his style that Tacitus was able to make good his claim of writing, in the accepted historical tradition, sine ira et studio [=impartially], and yet to leave etched on the reader's mind an ineradicable impression of tyranny and oppression..." She is dealing with what Tacitus says about Tiberius, but the technique reflects the author rather than the subject. Tacitus avoids "direct accusations of crime": he "stops short of a direct charge, and yet spares the emperor nothing of the burden of guilt." (Ryberg, op.cit. p.384.)
A grasp of how Tacitus proceeded is essential to understanding the passage we are considering. Mr Holding would like readers to believe that the fanciful description of the persecution of christians tacked onto the end of the historian's masterful attack on Nero -- a description that takes the reader's mind off Nero while still dealing with the fire he has indicted Nero for --, was actually written by Tacitus. Unwilling to accept that Tacitus knew what he was doing in his proceeding against Nero, Mr Holding has no problem with one of the most highly reputed orators of his time fumbling his finish. Even Mr Holding likes a big finish: "In any event, not one such authority thinks that Tacitus did not author the full text of Annals 15.44." This is little league acknowledging the big league of course, but it's a big finish for Mr Holding (no bars held).
Mr Holding has difficulties with my referring to the lusty descriptions of the treatment of the christian martyrs as "salacious materials", being torn apart by dogs or lighting up the night sky, stuff that mightn't be expected from the taciturn Tacitus but juice for Suetonius, or, better, for martyr-story hungry christians. I take this as a complaint about my use of "salacious" and I thank Mr Holding for his efforts at improving my writing technique.
Ryberg describes Tacitus as stopping short of a direct criminal charges, but here in 15.44 Mr Holding accepts that he does make a charge: "a false accusation by Nero against Christians". If we are to trust Ryberg's analysis, this is out of character for Tacitus.
Mr Holding seems unable to do anything other than to appeal to authority, and fill in the spaces with banter. I would much prefer him to consider the text for once and show that he understands the issues the text implies.
- spin January 2, 2009 3:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"Those who argue for a deviancy from a norm must argue it, not simply suppose it to be possible."
Of course. That's what Zindler is doing. If we had only one piece of data, and that was the Tacitus quote, and we had nothing else (no gospels, no Josephus interpolation, nothing from Paul), and we thought the Tacitus quote was genuine, we'd probably say it's more likely than not that Jesus existed. But if we look at the additional data and find that it points towards the non-existence of the historical Jesus, we go with it, because the Tacitus quote is not definitive.
- JonC January 1, 2009 6:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
...it is total untrue that Tacitus is considered to be reliable. The passage you refer to is a forgery and there is little other evidence to support the claim that Nero persecuted Christians. To quote the editor of Eusebius's The History of the Church: "Up to the persecution under the Emperor Decius (250-51) there had been no persecution of Christians ordered by the Emperor on an imperial scale."
- RedDragon
June 5, 2009 2:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Jesus is definately an historical figure, whether he lived as a human or not. Who can ever prove one way or another if a person existed. Was there ever a boy who cried wolf when there wasn't one? But Jesus first exists as a character in the book called the gospel . And further Jesus exists in the hearts of millions of people who let the teachings attributed to Him guide their daily lives. Sure there are many who have acted against his teachings and claimed to be his followers, but Jesus predicted this himself and said "I will say to them depart from me for I knew you not" and " Not all who say Lord Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven but those who do the will of my Father whjo is in heaven".
The fact that for thousands of years (measured in relation to his purported birth) that birth day has been celebrated around the world further prove he is an historical figure. And yes Virginia so is Santa Claus.
- james1951
July 24, 2009 1:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If we separate Jesus from Christian theology, the historic Jesus was a Jew speaking to other Jews. Could it be that what he was trying to do was found Reform Judaism?
- mike1948 July 31, 2009 12:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mr Holding has made a number of blunders in his response to the issue concerning the Tacitean error relating the use of "procurator" in A.15.44. He claims that Josephus calls Pilate a "procurator". However, it seems that Holding is unaware, dependent as he is on an old translation, that Josephus didn't use the term "procurator" and that Josephus wrote in Greek so one wouldn't expect this Latin term to have been found in his work.
He refers to "Antiquities 18.5.6", which doesn't exist, so I gather that should be 18.6.5 which states that Tiberius "sent in all but two procurators to govern the nation of the Jews, Gratus, and his successor in the government, Pilate." This is Whiston's translation. Josephus writes that Tiberius sent two to "manage" the nation of the Jews. There is no Greek noun equivalent here for Whiston's "procurator". In fact Whiston translates "hegemon", "eparchos" and "epitropos" all as "procurator". The last is the most usual translation for "procurator" in Greek literature (see Liddell & Scott) and one can clearly see in A.J. 18.6.3 (18.177), where it applies to Herrenius Capito, that it doesn't apply to a governor, but to a financial managerer. The distinction between governor and financial manager is made by Josephus again in A.J.18.6.5 (18.170), when he talks of "hegemosi", ie governors, and "epitropois", ie financial managers, during the reign of Tiberius.
Mr Holding claims that the use of these terms, "procurator" and "prefect", had "a certain fluidity", though providing no evidence for such a claim. They in fact technical terms which Tacitus was well aware of. Procurators were taken from ranks below patrician and therefore weren't eligible for magisterial power, so were not able to govern provinces, but Claudius, according to Tacitus (A.12.60), enabled the judgments of procurators to have the same weight as if he said them, thus providing them with the necessary power. Tacitus notes that Claudius gave government of Judea to members of the equestrian order or freedmen, ie procurators, after the death of Herod Agrippa (H.5.9.8). With these two separate pointers to the time of Claudius, Tacitus was well aware of when procurators were given control of Judea. Before the changes in the law under Claudius procurators were ineligible for government of provinces and were in charge of handling finances for a province.
In an attempt to cover his lack of argument Holding claims that 'Tacitus often uses "archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary" and also "avoids, varies, or 'misuses' technical terms."' Having been through the full process of rising through the magisterial ranks to consul, Tacitus would not have used the wrong term. This is not a matter of "archaizing" at all. It has nothing to do with "rare or obsolete vocabulary". It would simply have been wrong to use the term "procurator" when he knew that the position was not that at the time.
Following Sanders (which one?), Holding believes "that Tacitus was simply using the term with which his readers would be most familiar". Does this mean that his audience somehow forgot the term "prefect" (an administrative rank in existence at the time when Tacitus was writing) or would have found "procurator" more to be expected, when Egypt was ruled by a prefect? In A.15.25 he lists different officials in the empire, two of them being "prefect" and "procurator", so obviously Tacitus was not "simply using the term with which his readers would be most familiar".
In trying to mitigate the problem of terminology Mr Holding says: < s response to it.
- spin December 22, 2008 3:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
If indeed I made any “blunders,” they were also made by credentialed historians and scholars. Isn’t that amazing that mr. spin is so much better informed than they are?
Mr. spin says that “Josephus wrote in Greek so one wouldn't expect this Latin term to have been found in his work.” This is not a mystery to any scholar. It is the scholarship on Josephus that has determined that “procurator” is the correct translation. Why? Mr. spin commits his own monumental blunder when he says: “it doesn't apply to a governor, but to a financial managerer.” I have no idea what a “managerer” is – I assume this means “manager.” Well, what does mr. spin think a procurator is? A procurator IS a financial manager!
Mr. spin says I provide no evidence for the fluidity of the terms. I had not room to start; I will do so now:
In practical terms, "both the procurators and prefects in Judea had the power to execute criminals who were not Roman citizens." [Van Voorst] Practically, in this context, "A difference that is no difference, is no difference." Even the Secular Web's Richard Carrier has now stated: “It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D. And since it is more insulting (to an elitist like Tacitus and his readers) to be a procurator, and even more insulting to be executed by one, it is likely Tacitus chose that office out of his well-known sense of malicious wit. Tacitus was also a routine employer of variatio, deliberately seeking nonstandard ways of saying things (it is one of several markers of Tacitean style). So there is nothing unusual about his choice here.”
I wonder whether mr. spin would care to inform Mr. Carrier of his error.
Mr. spin in any event misses the point on the grounds that Pilate would be BOTH procurator and prefect.
Mr. spin then says I “attempt to cover my lack of argument” by appeal to Tacitus’ use of vocabulary. Indeed? I wonder if mr. spin would like to inform Carrier, as well as the Tacitean scholars from which I derived that quotation – Kraus and Woodman – that “Tacitus would not have used the wrong term.” If mr. spin would like, I will gladly provide him with contact information for all three of these people, so that he may inform them that their scholarly judgments – in particular, Kraus and Woodman’s as specialists in the work of Tacitus – are completely in error.
I will also gladly provide mr. spin with the address of E. P. Sanders, a qualified and credentialed scholar with numerous publications to his credit, so that he can inform him of the flaws in his argument. But no, the point would not be that the term “prefect” would be forgotten – just more familiar, just as I said. That does not mean he will never use “prefect” as mr. spin seems to think, just that he will use “procurator” more often – bearing in mind again that Pilate is supposed here to have held both titles.
True to his name, mr. spin then “spins” my point about Tacitus’ knowledge of terms as “a good argument against [my] own position.” It is so only under mr. spin’s paradigm of dismissing such recognized facts as the use of variatio and/or archaic technology. In essence here, mr. spin takes the approach of a “Tacitus fundamentalist” who reads Tacitus only in narrow, literalistic terms.
In close, I think it speaks for itself that mr. spin says that “actual arguments are not important here.” His own grasp of historiography in general, and Tacitean scholarship in particular, is itself severely antiquated. However, I will aid him in his effort to reform Tacitean scholarship by pointing him to contact information for those such as Kraus and Carrier whom he wishes to correct, on request.
- JP Holding December 31, 2008 10:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It would seem that Mr Holding is incapable of citing original sources for his comments and prefers to rehash potted versions of secondary sources. Perhaps he could spare the middle man and say something based on evidence from the past.
He is too busy trying to score brownie points: he says 'I have no idea what a “managerer” is'. Of course he knows: 'I assume this means “manager.”' The purpose of his wasted effort is apparently to make up for nothing to say regarding what he is replying to.
He then attempts to remedy this lack by citing more authorities with regard to procurator/prefect and in so doing provides no time scale for the comments when I specifically provided a reference to when procurators were given control of Judea. Van Voorst doesn't seem to provide temporal context for the issue; perhaps Mr Holding can. I suggest that Mr Holding inform Mr Carrier of his errors with regard to the terms, as he is so concerned. Perhaps Carrier could deal with the issue with some more substance -- you know, with a few facts.
Instead of shuffling names across the screen, it would be nice if Mr Holding actually put forward an argument based on evidence rather than insisting that his arguments from authority are meaningful.
I thank Mr Holding for his offer to provide E.P. Sanders' address, though it isn't necessary. What is necessary however, is that when he provides a reference, that reference should be clear. In my dealing with biblical studies I know at least two scholars named Sanders.
If Mr Holding would like to present a case regarding the possibility of Pilate bearing two offices at the same time, I'll be happy to criticize any evidence he wishes to proffer. As it stands he has presented nothing, so the issue need no response.
When Mr Holding would like to deal with the fact that Tacitus shows clear knowledge as to when procurators were given control of Judea, I will happily read his thoughts, but a reader can see that instead of doing so he has taken exception with internet editing, used various appeals to authority, tried to pun on my name, indirectly called me "a Tacitus fundamentalist", and done everything but deal with what he claimed to be. Perhaps he can do better next time.
In this game of cards the only thing Mr Holding is holding is himself. That's not a pretty sight.
- spin December 31, 2008 1:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
It seems quite clear from mr. spin’s last commentary that he is not able to provide any answer for why his word is to be taken over that of credentialed scholars like Kraus and Woodman who have studied Tacitus for their entire academic careers. Instead, what we read from him amounts to a bare denial to engage the issue and prove his points with substance; e.g., showing that all of scholarship has been incorrect about such matters as the use of variatio. The evidence has been presented, and it comes from those who know the world of Tacitus. Mr. spin’s response amounts to him standing on the corner and bellowing, “Prove it!” when he it is in fact his burden to show that those who do their homework are in error.
- JP Holding January 2, 2009 8:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
J.P. ("I don't do evidence") Holding has yet again run to the skirts of his authorities and refused to even look at the text. No surprise there. This time he stands behind Kraus and Woodman, the pair he cited for the fact that Tacitus often uses "archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary" and also "avoids, varies, or 'misuses' technical terms." Of course, this has nothing to do with the bog standard administrative terminology, "procurator" and "prefect", both being technical terms well understood by Tacitus and his audience. Mr Holding is simply and purposelessly name dropping. Kraus and Woodman have no impact on why Tacitus should use "procurator" rather than the correct term "prefect" for Pilate.
It's time Mr Holding started holding up his end of the discussion... rather than hiding in the nest of Kraus and Woodman. He is a cuckoo in that nest.
- spin January 2, 2009 4:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
There’s no more that needs to be said. Mr. spin creatively tries to parse a category of “standard administrative terminology” and separate it from the broad categories of “vocabulary” and “technical terms,” which is so desperate as to initiate a laugh track. So administrative terms are not “vocabulary” and they are not “technical”. I see.
I hear cuckoos indeed, but the nest seems to be in mr. spin’s corner of the room.
- JP Holding January 3, 2009 12:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Mr Holding cites his authorities for saying that Tacitus often uses "archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary" and also "avoids, varies, or 'misuses' technical terms." Then he surreptitiously forgets that the vocabulary is described as "archaizing, rare, or obsolete", yet there is no thing "archaizing, rare, or obsolete" about the “standard administrative terminology”. He slyly omits the fact that Tacitus "avoids, varies, or 'misuses'" technical terms, which I gather we both categorized "procurator" and "prefect" as. He even seems oblivious my comment that "procurator" and "prefect" are both "*technical terms* well understood by Tacitus".
Mr Holding was responsible for introducing these opinions into the discourse and now he is reneging on what they say. Yes, I have no doubt that administrative terms are “vocabulary” and they are “technical”. However, they are not "archaizing, rare, or obsolete", so Mr Holding has wasted our time citing the comment. Tacitus does not "avoid" these technical terms.
With his last posting Mr Holding is totally off his mark, unaware of the issues, unable to grasp what he was responding to, and out of touch. I guess even experts have their off days.
- spin January 3, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The latter part of my original comment was cut off after posting, so I supply it below:
In trying to mitigate the problem of terminology Mr Holding says: <
- spin December 22, 2008 5:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
In trying to mitigate the problem of terminology Mr Holding says:
[Being that Tacitus' readers were - like he had been - members of the Senate and holders of political office, we must suppose that this "error" escaped not only Tacitus' attention, but theirs as well. We may as well suggest that a United States Senate historian's error of the same rank would pass without comment.]
This is actually a good argument against his own position. People who had been through the system would have known *exactly* what each of these terms implied, so it would be unfathomable that Tacitus would have used them is such a lackadaisical manner. Holding's argument here suggests that Tacitus wasn't responsible for the use of "procurator".
Of course it might be possible that Tacitus is using either "archaizing, rare, or obsolete vocabulary" or more "familiar" language, but not both, for they are mutually exclusive arguments. But actual arguments are not important here. Mr Holding uses an antiquated translation of Josephus and he uses conflicting arguments showing little appreciation of either Tacitus or Tacitean language in this matter.
The only thing ineffectual about the problem surrounding the use of "procurator" in Annals 15.44 is Mr Holding's response to it.
- spin December 22, 2008 5:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
By presenting a bowdlerized form of the TF you admit that the Antiquities has been corrupted -- at least at this point. It is now merely arbitrary which parts you keep and which parts you get rid of. This has nothing to do with what the text was originally like. It merely reflects the current mores.
The TF has been rejected in toto since the time of Scaliger in the mid 1500s. Only with the beginning of the 20th c. was the situation reconsidered, though the methodology behind the result of this modern reconsideration is far from transparent. It seems to be something like: Well, Josephus couldn't have written "he was the christ", because Origen said that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the christ. Oh, and the appearance after three days looks a little too hard to justify in Josephus as well, but, hey, what's wrong with the rest? It's a nice succinct piece of witnessing. (Christians believe in christ. Christ crucified. Under Pilate. In Judea. Christians get martyred. Martyrdom brings sympathy for christians from ordinary people.)
That's called bowdlerization and it functionally renders the emended version of questionable value. That it's questionable doesn't have an impact on any apologetic mileage you can get out of it, but that has little to do with logic and reasoning. Tainted evidence is usually inadmissable. You wouldn't want someone's life to depend on tainted evidence in a court of law.
- spin December 23, 2008 4:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Once again it seems that mr. spin has created his own rules for historical epistemology. Regrettably, professional textual critics are not aware of his startling thesis that “guilt by association” renders other parts of a text inauthentic or suspicious once one interpolation is discovered.
In any event, his claims otherwise are quite erroneous. It is not “arbitrary” which parts are kept of left out; Josephan scholars have done in-depth analyses of the TF – line by line – to determine what portions are authentic and which are not. I suppose it would be asking too much of mr. spin to defend a thesis of inauthenticity for each portion the same way.
That the “TF has been rejected in toto since the time of Scaliger in the mid 1500s” is quite interesting, but irrelevant to the arguments presented by modern Josephan scholars like Mason, Feldman, and Thackery, who are light years ahead in their research and available evidence and many of whom who have not even a conceivable interest in “witnessing” for Christ (Feldman for example is Jewish). This is again a case of mr. spin avoiding the real arguments, I expect because they are too difficult for him to counter. One may find a line by line analysis of the TF in Ch. 1 of my book, Shattering the Christ Myth; the chapter is written by Christopher Price.
Mr. spin concludes, “Tainted evidence is usually inadmissable. You wouldn't want someone's life to depend on tainted evidence in a court of law.” I wonder what this has to do with anything, since “tainted evidence” is defined as that which is obtained by illegal means (eg, without a search warrant). Perhaps mr. spin is also advancing new definitions for the legal profession. I assume he means evidence that is somehow corrupted. However, since every work of ancient literature has interpolations and corruptions, by that criteria, he has once again determined that all classical scholars are foolishly wasting their time reconstructing history. We are indeed fortunate to have someone of mr. spin’s expertise available to us.
- JP Holding December 31, 2008 10:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I can appreciate Mr Holding's reluctance to contemplate the process of cherry-picking regarding the Testimonium Flavianum carried out by modern analysts. He is committed to the authenticity of the text for want of anything better. But cherry-picking is at the core of the modern analysis. That which specifically cannot belong is not necessarily all that doesn't belong. It is thus pure conjecture to decide that the identifiably problematical is the only material added to the text. That the conjecture is at the hands of Mr Holding's authorities doesn't change its conjectural nature.
I'm also amused at Mr Holding citing his acolyte Christopher Price as an expert regarding the Testimonium Flavianum. I didn't know that Price managed to get out of his legal obligations long enough to earn that expert status. My memory of his amateur antics is that he had little control of anything he talked about concerning the ancient literature. But perhaps it's any port in the storm for Mr Holding.
Lastly, Mr Holding takes exception to my using "tainted evidence" to describe, umm, evidence which has been tainted, ie a text which has recognized content that doesn't belong with no way of determining what else doesn't belong. Yes, there is a legal term which Mr Holding went off on a tangent about, but it is only a means for him not to deal with the issue of how a scholar, one s/he has noted foreign material in a text, can decide the original form of that text. Once a section of a text has been individuated as having problems with no coherent method provided of "sanatizing" the section, that part of the text loses its credibility. One may dispute my analysis, but one cannot ignore the issue as Mr Holding has done, yet again seeking the comforting arms of his authorities.
- spin December 31, 2008 5:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Mr. spin speaks of my alleged “reluctance to contemplate the process of cherry-picking regarding the Testimonium Flavianum carried out by modern analysts” in vain, apparently unaware that my book on the subject contains just such depth contemplations by Price, which I have little doubt mr. spin is ill-equipped to refute save by using ideological Dymo tape to apply labels like “pure conjecture” which in the end are the final refuge of a neophyte unable to confront the actual arguments, especially those by qualified sources like Feldman. We will apparently see no direct answer to myself or Price, or to scholars who present ways to decide the original form of the text.
I note that mr. spin also dodges his error in misapplying the term “tainted evidence.” Clearly, getting mr. spin to admit to any mistake on his part is akin to doing battle with the knight in Monty Python whose limbs have been shorn off and calls it but a flesh wound.
- JP Holding January 2, 2009 8:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I recently said, "One may dispute my analysis, but one cannot ignore the issue as Mr Holding has done, yet again seeking the comforting arms of his authorities." Mr Holding has proved me wrong: he can simply ignore the issue, though this time not appealing to authority, but to an amateur.
- spin January 2, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Mr. spin will not get off so easy, as Price uses experts to arrive at his conclusions. In any event there will clearly be no parsing analysis from him.
- JP Holding January 3, 2009 12:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
When you decide to get your hands dirty with facts rather than relying on anyone else to do your work for you, you might learn something. As it is your vain babbling of names is useless to you. Layman cannot help you: he can't help himself. You avoid facts like they're dirty. Present a case of your own for those bits of the TF you'd like to keep. I'll hack it up for you. While you refuse to deal with the text, you say nothing.
- spin January 3, 2009 4:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Is there any more historic proof of Socrates then there is of Jesus? Could Plato have made him up?
- mike1948 September 6, 2009 10:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I suspect that Socrates was an amalgam of some unremarkable fellow that taught contemporaneously with another unremarkable fellow with the name 'Socrates' further amalgamated with a lot of controversial things Plato wanted to say, but was not willing to drink hemlock over.
He remains superior to the JC legend for a couple reasons, however, not the least of which is originality, but mostly for not being attributed with fantastic magical powers and mystical activities.
- Submariner September 21, 2009 11:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I never found Socrates particularly original, more of an upper-class heckler supporting the return of the dictatorship. Jesus may not have been original but at least he was for the working class. As for magical powers the only one I remember was his walking on water .
- mike1948 September 22, 2009 12:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
That's funny. Socrates was dry - even sophomoric.
But I was referring to the fact that Plato, perhaps, was more original than the authors posing as the early church fathers who pretty much plagiarized the rest of the worlds messianic mysticism when fine tuning their dogma.
And I'm not the most read in the new testament, but I think there was something about resurrection, flying to heaven, and some communist thing about feeding the poor for free.
Incidently - this picture is someone upskirtesque.
- Submariner September 22, 2009 2:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
J.P. I think the real problem with the James the brother of Jesus bit from Josephus is that beyond that brief insertion "who was called Christ" Josephus gives no hint that he regards James as the leader of a Christian sect. If James is really Jesus' brother, and Josephus knows this, why doesn't he comment on the remarkable events that he describes more? Supposedly orthodox Jews are upset that the leader of a heretical sect was killed such that they appeal to the authorities and demand restitution? That's just odd. If you take out the "who was called Christ" line, then suddenly things make sense. In fact the Jesus that is James brother may be the son of Damneus referred to at the end of the passage.
And we all know Christian copyists had no qualms about altering texts to suit their own agenda.
The major problem with the famous Testimonium to my mind is that nobody, Christian or otherwise, cites the passage prior to Eusebius despite the fact that they were aware of them. Origen quotes Josephus extensively, including this book in question, yet never mentions it. He even goes so far as to say that one thing we know about Josephus. He did not regard Jesus as the Christ. Couple this with the fact that we all know that at a minimum major parts are interpolated, if not the whole thing, and you've got a real house of cards here. A very slender reed on which to base historicity.
Eusebius, the first to quote this text in the full flowered, obviously absurd form, is also famous for saying that using falsehood is often necessary for those that need such an approach. Could it be authentic, or perhaps a central core? I suppose. It could also be entirely spurious.
- JonC December 17, 2008 3:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am not clear on why this is to be considered a problem. Josephus evidently takes it for granted that his audience knows who James is when he appends the description of him as the brother of Jesus. It is not his goal to provide autobiographies of every character he mentions. If you can show that every other minor person he mentions is described to the same extent you are asking, you will have the beginnings of a case.
You say, “Supposedly orthodox Jews are upset that the leader of a heretical sect was killed such that they appeal to the authorities and demand restitution? That's just odd.” Not at all. You are missing the point that James’ execution was essentially illegal, since Rome held capital power. It is not so much that it was James in particular that was upsetting, but that the illegal execution could have serious repercussions.
You say, “And we all know Christian copyists had no qualms about altering texts to suit their own agenda.” I know of no such thing as a regular practice. Individual claims of alteration must be argued on their own merits, not effected by guilt of association. You appeal also to Eusebius saying he is “famous for saying that using falsehood is often necessary for those that need such an approach.” That is a widely misunderstood reading of Eusebius. I do not know which particular passage you have in mind, but Roger Pearse has analyzed several that are used to this effect at http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm
You will need to discuss specific portions of the passage and explain why they are interpolated for me to say anything further. Also, like Zindler, you will need to explain of what use the TF (as restored) would have been to any particular author such as Origen would have found it useful.
It is not so much that it was James in particular that was upsetting, but that the illegal execution could have serious repercussions. In addition, the Pharisees would have appreciated James’ concessions to observe and respect the Law.
- JP Holding December 18, 2008 4:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You can always concoct what you've heard Farrell Till refer to is the "How it could have been" scenario. Is it possible that Josephus' audience is just so familiar with Jesus that they have no need for explanatory details? I suppose. I don't find that to be plausible. If you do, I guess that's where our difference would lie.
With regards to the odd nature of the orthodox Jews being upset about the death, note that Josephus says that Ananus brought charges against James as a breaker of the law. If he was a Christian and he's teaching the gospel then Ananus would probably be right to say he was a breaker of the law. Josephus says that the elders regarded this as unjust. Isn't that odd if James is a Christian? You say the issue is they think Ananus didn't have the authority to act as he did, and this was the problem. I thought the Jews were kind of annoyed that they had to go through Rome to govern themselves, so I would think they would be slow to appeal to Rome if they thought the punishment was just. Again, this makes it odd.
This doesn't mean it's definitely interpolated. But it's not definitely original either. And again, with Christians running around modifying texts all over the place to suit there own agenda we're stuck being unsure, and hence we are unable to use this as a foundation stone for proof of the historical Jesus. Too bad, but what can you do?
I've read the Pearse article and I really don't think he deals with the issue, but if you need evidence that Christians had no qualms about modifying or inventing texts to further their own agenda, see the TF, the various spurious gospels, letters, and even the manuscripts of the canonical texts as Bart Ehrman has exhaustively shown. That's my main point here. I assume you don't dispute it.
- JonC January 1, 2009 7:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Tacitus isn't even needed to begin with! The issue doesn't hinge on him!
For sure, testimony pushes the bar ever further beyond reasonable doubt, but we have reached that point long before Tacitus' work. For the existence of Jesus, we have four texts (the Gospels) that are in the style of Greco/Roman bios (lives), one historiography text (Acts), the testimony of Saul/Paul, who from his first letter tells us he was a former persecutor who knew the original disciples of Jesus, and that they agreed with his preaching (Gal 1:13-24; Gal 2:9-10), the testimony of the Pastorals, Hebrews author, 1 Clement....the list goes on.
It would be foolish to say that there are perhaps some historical/textual discrepencies in these works, some issues to sort through, but thats history! If anyone applied these ridiculous criteria to any other ancient sources whos textual/historical problems are far far far far worse than anything in the NT, we would have no history. We'd all be screaming, "Woe is us! We cannot know for sure either way! So we must presume the negative!"
From just the Christian testimony alone, we have a huge pool of resources. Of the kind that if it were in support of any figure of "secular" history, his existence would be beyond any doubt. But since its Jesus, well we have to have a Polaroid snapshot of him teaching. This whole thing is so nutty!
The testimony of Josephus and Tacitus, two of the most prized historians of this period, puts Jesus so firmly in history, that mythers are forced to coming just shy of denying anything can be known at all about ancient history at all. As JP said in his response to Zindler’s one weak argument, “Mr. Zindler is using a form of (historical) epistemology unknown to credentialed historians.”
The evidence is clear, if you deny Jesus existed, you better be applying your criteria fairly, and across the board with respect to all accepted historical knowledge. I think you’ll find how absurd your thinking is is you actually do go ahead an try this.
- fenrir23 December 18, 2008 6:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm gonna make a few comments even though in my last comment to Zindler, I said I was through.
First, I accidentally put the above comment here under JP's Josephus argument instead of under his Tacitus argument. My point still stands. Adding Tacitus to the roster pushes Jesus so far over the historicity burden of proof, it isn't even funny. Tacitus isn't just "generally reliable". According to scholars who study him, and antiquity in general, he's very well beyond reliable. Look into works like those by Martin, Grant and Syme. Tacitus questioned his sources, and simply would not have reported something like this about Jesus without a good investigation. Unless one is willing to engage in a little speacial pleading here, the decision isn't that difficult. Tacitus is simply one of many hurdles the Christ myther fails to clear.
Regarding Josephus, one cannot simply remove the words, "Who was called Christ" and then say, "the passage still reads fine, even better since it goes along with my theory better now." For all this does is assume a forgery to prove one.
Reality check: We have nothing to suggest early Christians added and subtracted information from any text they wanted on a whim. Again, Christianity had not the power to do so for about 275 yrs, and didn;t even have that kind of power when it controlled the Roman world. The manuscript tradition for Josephus is just as good as most other works, which also come from largly Christian hand, of antiquity and not one manuscript omits these words.
Thus, its already going way beyond the evidence to suggest otherwise. Further, why would Josephus need go into any further discussion about James' role in the early Christian community? Again, this argument from silence proves nothing save for what Josephus chose to mention, and what he chose not to mention. It does not give justification to re-write other parts of the passage as we see fit. Moreover, as JP says, the passage is about neither Jesus nor James, but Ananus. James and Jesus are given passing mentions simply to clarify James' role in what Josephus believed to be the more important story. What happened to Ananus!
Ironically, if a Christian had got ahold of this, it would not read like it does now. It probably would say something like, "...brought before them the Brother of the Lord Jesus, the Christ, who was called James the Just. The head of the Christians. And was murdered at the Jews hands." The idea that Christians just got lucky by finding a passage that sounds a lot like what we know about the early church and inserted the words, "called Christ" and got away with it is silly.
The passage is just like Tacitus' reference. Its so mundane to negative in what it says about Jesus and James. Merely two passing names that Josephus never talks of again. Hardly something a Christian would forge. On top of all this, neither passage provides any apologetic content at all. Indeed, the reconsructed Testimonium, and the James reference, are both neutral to very negative in their assesment of Jesus and so provide us with nothing that other Christian sources didn't already say about him. That Jesus was a man who did miricles, was crucified, and had a brother named James was never once disputed by any ancient opponent or proponent of Christianity, Jew or Pagan. Thus, for the purpose of apologetics, they are totally useless! Josephus' comments on Jesus are authentic as the top Josephus scholars in the world, who, by the way, have nothing to lose from saying otherwise, assert over and over again. I know for the myther that sucks, but thats life.
Thats it! I'm out!
- fenrir23 December 19, 2008 12:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mr Holding is correct to point out the construction method of Josephus. However, he has not gone far enough in his presentation. Josephus certainly obtained materials from different sources, but he also tried to sew them together by time or content. For instance 18.65 starts: "About the same time another outrage threw the Jews into an uproar...". This indicates a prior uproar among the Jews just mentioned by Josephus.
However, the present text doesn't supply such an uproar in the directly preceding material, but in reaction to Pilate's use of temple money in 18.60-62. The material between 18.62 and 18.65 interrupts the discourse connective provided at the beginning of 18.65. Josephus clearly desired to connect the account starting in 18.65 with that ending in 18.62 as two accounts that threw Jews into an uproar. This suggests that the material in 18.63-64 was added by another hand, not interested in Josephus's construction.
- spin December 22, 2008 8:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Mr. spin once again fails as he misses a point: No one doubts that Josephus “tried” to sew together material; nevertheless, the estimation of Josephan scholars is that he often FAILED to do so in a cohesive way.
To that extent, it is perfectly within bounds to say that the “uproar” Josephus alludes to is indeed the one regarding the use of the temple money. In other words, Josephus’ “patchwork” nature led him to create a remote antecedent for reference to the “uproar.” Mr. spin has not answered the argument but merely confirmed it.
- JP Holding December 31, 2008 10:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mr Holding acknowledges that Josephus uses mixed sources. Good. He doesn't acknowledge how Josephus uses those sources, ie the way he sews them together. Bad. We see the care Josephus takes in stitching the passage starting at 18.65 to the previous uproar. We don't see that care with the connection of 18.63f or the break of the existing connection. Mr Holding has no argument, he just has a conclusion.
- spin December 31, 2008 1:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
How Josephus “uses those sources” has been made quite clear – he sews them together “badly.” That is the argument, and the conclusion comes from it. Mr. spin will have to do much more than simply repeat his refuted argument, and certainly will have to explain why he is to be believed over those who have studied Josephus’ work in depth.
- JP Holding January 2, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Claiming refutation without supplying one is as empty as Mr Holding's argument regarding the Testimonium Flavianum.
Mr Holding seems to be tacitly supporting the notion that Josephus redacted the text after he had finished the section we are investigating. After all, there is clear linkage to show that 18.65 at one time directly followed 18.62. There are also comments in the intervening material which Mr Holding freely admits are not by Josephus, but by a christian interpolator.
In order to use the Testimonium Flavianum as evidence of anything, all Mr Holding needs to do is show that Josephus is responsible for the remaining material in 18.63-4 he claims is not interpolation, ie not by the christian interpolator, who he freely admits was responsible for at least part of the passage.
It would be nice if there were something holding up Mr Holding's comments other than appeals to authority.
- spin January 2, 2009 2:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Pretending to have not been refuted is an even emptier practice, but one mr. spin no doubt considers his best option at this point since repeating his refuted arguments doesn’t seem to be working. It has been shown that the nature of Josephus’ writing is such that there is nothing peculiar about reference back to 18.62 in 18.65. Mr. spin is clearly unequipped to refute the consensus of Josephan scholarship, and so is reduced to yelling “Prove it!” to support a heavily counter-consensus position he has contrived out of thin air in order to gain the conclusion he wants.
I have already indicated what portions of the TF are regarded to be original to Josephus. Now mr spin needs to do the real work of explaining, phrase by phrase, why I (and the experts who have studied Josephus all their lives, like Feldman, Mason, and Thackery, et al) are wrong.
I note again that mr. spin fears “appeals to authority” – no doubt because he cannot answer actual experts. But it seems strange that he wishes to appeal to his own authority in order to accept that the experts are wrong. Apparently “appeal to authority” is all right as long as the authority is mr. spin himself.
- JP Holding January 3, 2009 12:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is very sad. Mr Holding has been babbling names as a mantra to ward of the necessity of dealing with his problems. If he could say something substantive about the issues presented to him, I'd be very happy to deal with it, but all one can get out of him is the implied Sergeant Schultz response: "I know nothing!"
Q: Mr Holding, what's your name?
A: Feldman, Mason, Thackery,
Q: Mr Holding, what does the text say?
A: Kraus, Woodman.
Q: Mr Holding, what's the time?
A: Thackery, Mason, Kraus
An expert is able to deal with the primary sources. Mr Holding has shown a total aversion to his raw material, yet wallows in triumphalism. He is at least an entertaining diversion.
When he feels like explaining why AJ 18.65 which refers to the events recorded in 18.60-2 is unaccountably separated from it by the TF, a passage he freely admits at least partially is not by Josephus, I'll be able to speak to it. As he continues to provide nothing tangible, (except lists of names like Cleese, Chapman, Jones), it seems he isn't holding back, just holding nothing.
- spin January 3, 2009 4:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
”The first Christian writer was Paul. According to Paul, what did Jesus do to start this movement? As an aside, why did Paul not persecute the movement while Jesus was leading it? Did he send out disciples? Did he preach? Did he demonstrate against the Temple? Did he rewrite the Jewish law so that it did not apply? DId he declare himself to be king? Or did Jesus found the cultic meal,where the founder exists in a symbolic fashion as bread and wine? What would a mythical founder of a cult do other than found a ceremony highly charged with symbolism, where the believers can be in the prescence of the founder in a mystical way?”
- stevencarrwork December 17, 2008 9:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
When you say "Paul never met Jesus and only had a vision of him on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:19), his testimony is that there were already believers whom he was persecuting in Palestine in the first century. So by Paul's own testimony he was not that charismatic person."
Why do you suppose it's more likely "Paul" had a revelation about a real person rather than a revelation about someone who was formerly known as a pagan type dying/ressurecting godman? Since it's basically a hallucination on the road to Damascus why does the hallucination have to be about someone historical? In fact, if it were about a real person that people knew about then it wouldn't be a vision or a hallucination...just a history lesson. But to have this big fantastic vision that apparently was "news"...doesn't seem to jive with me that it would have to do with a historical person. More likely a vision would be all fantasy and imagined and far more likely that the reason it was a revelation was because he suddenly realized the dying godman was REAL!
I feel like you add a lot of conjecture and consider it evidence.
Cheers,
GR
- Godless Raven December 22, 2008 8:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
In Galations and in Acts we're told Paul personally met with Peter and/or with the other apostles. This is called textual evidence, and it strongly indicates that someone called together the apostles and that they would correct Paul if ge didn't think of the cult leader as a real human person.
I think your views are conjecture. The textual evidence is on my side, which is all the evidence we can go on to make a decision.
- John W Loftus December 22, 2008 10:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
An expert is supposed to interact with the evidence rather than simply go along with what the sources say. Galatians talks of Paul's meeting Cephas and then suddenly in 2:7-8 the text refers to Peter, and subsequently it talks once again about Cephas as one of the pillars and his actions in Antioch. 1 Corinthians also talks about Cephas, but not Peter. Gal 2:9 talks about the pillars going to the circumcised, yet 2:7-8 specifies only Peter going to the circumcised. The reference to Peter seems to be an addition to the text and is therefore not to be trusted on face value.
Acts is a much later work which has no problems talking about Peter. But using Acts in collaboration with Galatians is a little like using Mel Gibson's Passion in relation to the gospels.
What you are presenting is not called "textual evidence".
Please read exactly what Paul says in Gal 1:11-12: "For I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from man nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation a Jesus Christ." He didn't get it from Cephas or from James, the only two he met before going to Jerusalem.
He doesn't tell us what those people believed, though we can infer that they were messianists, for he says that he had previously attempted to destroy them and that now they were saying "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith that he once tried to destroy." (1:23)
So, Paul didn't get his gospel from other people, though he now apparently believed in the same thing that those he persecuted did.
The purpose for Paul's letter to the Galatians is that the Galatians had come in contact with Jews who insisted that they be circumcised, which to Paul was unacceptable, so he attempts to convince them that torah observance has been rendered useless by the death and resurrection of Jesus. This latter idea is part of Paul's gospel, ie faith in Jesus and the salvific act of his death and resurrection, which sets him apart from those of the circumcision, of whom the people in Jerusalem belonged. (The messiah that Paul presents is clearly un-Jewish in conception, related more to the gentile idea of a savior, for the Jewish messiah was a liberator of the Jewish people and was so at least until 135 CE.)
It might be useful to present textual evidence for what those people in Jerusalem believed rather than assume it.
- spin December 22, 2008 9:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Galatians cannot support the whole weight of the textual evidence. No document can do this. It's always the convergence of evidence that leads us to a conclusion about the past. When you do this you are not treating historical textual evidence fairly. In no other area could historians do what you want to do by isolating texts and asking each individual text to support the whole weight of a conclusion. Isolated texts cannot do this. As I said, if Paul had a different view of Jesus than the early church apostles then any one of them would've made that clear to him. And who called these apostles together in the first place? Cults are started by charismatic leaders, especially doomsday prophets.
Do you think Paul wrote these letters? Where is any independent corroboration of this claim? If there is none then why do you believe he did? And if you cannot support that claim then what becomes of the existence of Paul, or Peter, or even Papias?
I think I've made my argument on this clear. Thanks for commenting.
- John W Loftus December 23, 2008 7:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I choose to start at what looks like the beginning, ie when Paul had the revelation of his new gospel which he so happens to report in Galatians 1:11f. It is fairly simple: you start at the beginning and then go towards the end.
Now if you want me to call the writer of Galatians "Fritz" or "Wayne", I'll do so to make you happy, but it won't change the beginning that it signals.
I also choose to start with one text because it is short and less likely to have many of examples of "orthodox corruption of scriptures". You could then build on it with other less questionable Pauline (or Fritzlich) works, such as Romans or the letters to the Corinthians.
But with a start like the revelation, it explains how the religion got kick-started and needs no previous starter. Remember, Paul's communities needed nothing other than Paul to become believers, so a Pauline start is far more economical. If Paul didn't need more, why do you?
Once people start ruminating on the little tangible christ tradition that Paul gave his communities, with a strong will to know more the tradition will only expand to meet demand. Nothing stops such development. Just look at the absurd decisions they were making at the time of Arius: there was no way they could ever know about the substance of their god or their savior, yet there was strife and people excommunicated. Tradition expands. Did you know that Pilate had a wife named Procla? or that Pilate became a saint in the Coptic church? The Didache warns communities about itinerant preachers who went from one christian community to another making a living off them out of telling stories. Like bees sucking honey and fertilizing flowers. The community's traditions were enriched by the stories they heard from these busy bees.
- spin December 23, 2008 9:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
You and I both know that Paul did not have any veridical revelation from God. So, where did he get his information? The textual evidence leads us to think he was persecuting followers of Jesus. It would follow quite naturally that when persecuting them he got much of his gospel from them. The details were filled in through this so-called revelation (or vision). As I said, mythic elements were indeed added to the Jesus story, and some of them were added because of visions. One thing seems fairly clear to me. Of all the beliefs Paul would have about the founder of the Jesus cult the one thing he would agree with the disciples was that there was a real person behind the doomsday prophecies that were such an embarrassment to the early church they had to rewrite these claims as time went on and the eschaton didn't happen.
You have a lot of explaining to do, not me. Become a historian of ancient Rome, okay? Then I think you'll see what I mean. If the only people you can confirm ever existed are those people who had their faces on coins or who actually wrote letters then there would be little history to write about (I exaggerate).
Karl Popper talked about verifying the claim that Caesar was killed by Brutus. He said we would have to verify the source that spoke of the event, then verify that source and then verify the source used to verify that source, and so on and so forth, until we would have little to verify that Caesar was killed by Brutus, since it becomes less and less probable that each additional source can verify all that went before it (called diminishing probabilities). One can rationally deny that Caesar was killed by Brutus. Maybe he didn’t, no one can be sure. In fact, one can rationally deny almost any claim made in the past, sometimes quite easily, especially the farther back in time we go and the less evidence there is for it, simply because the past does not give up its truths easily on a platter.
For me it’s just a matter of intellectual integrity, especially in this particular case with regard to Jesus. For if we want to be fair with Christianity in our criticisms and not appear to them as people who will deny anything to escape the claims of the gospel, then we should be fair with them. That’s my goal. I want to be fair with them and give them the benefit of the doubt. And there is doubt, no doubt. But even if we give them the benefit of doubt on this non-essential issue we still have a massive amount of evidence and arguments against their faith. I’ll let them have their cake, but they won’t be able to eat it. The bottom line is that one cannot be that skeptical about the evidence of the past or else one could also use that same skepticism to deny the Holocaust happened, which a few do. I stand with the overwhelming peer-reviewed scholars who think Jesus was a real person and that he was a doomsday prophet. Since that’s the case the burden is on you to show otherwise, and you have not done this.
Cheers.
- John W Loftus December 23, 2008 10:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If you don't want to believe that Paul thought he had a revelation, then you are making Paul a hostile witness, because you don't believe what he says and you think you know better what's on his mind. I won't presume to think that. We know that he was in conflict with the Jerusalem group who were more interested in being good Jews and observing the torah rather than having faith in christ crucified. Which sounds more like the roots of christianity to you?
It seems to me, John, that you are willing to talk about anything but textual evidence, because you seem very reluctant to use any.
And I don't talk about myths regarding the christian religion, merely developing traditions. Traditions are those nice quagmires that *you* feel somehow you can enter into and come out with something tangible. Claiming this is a myth or that, but you can grasp the truth in the tradition sounds completely arbitrary to me. It verges on the same arbitrariness that JP Holding registers with his approach to the Testimonium Flavianum -- he'll pick this bit out and that, but keep whatever suits his fancy. You apparently do the same thing with christian tradition.
Another of your tangents regards denial. You have missed the point. I put myself down here as "uncommitted" on the issue. There is no denial at all in such a position. It says, bring on the evidence that I can't find. You have convinced yourself that there is textual evidence and I have asked you several times to actually produce some so we can look at what your thoughts are based on, but you aren't forthcoming. You just fall into arguing a binary taxonomy and ignoring the position I put forward. You have a responsibility to produce your evidence for the claim you are making and you haven't done so. I've even been kind enough to supply an alternative scenario that explains the whole evidence more economically. I haven't denied anything. I don't believe the scenario, but it is functional.
I have no doubt that Paul thought Jesus was a real person somehow. Otherwise christ crucified would be meaningless to him. However what he believed doesn't necessarily reflect reality, does it? He didn't know a real Jesus, so he didn't need one to believe he was real, and this was true for his communities who only received Jesus from him.
Your last paragraph is rather perplexing:
> For me it’s just a matter of intellectual integrity,
> especially in this particular case with regard to
> Jesus.
Is the case I present against you not a case for me of intellectual integrity? Your comment seems to be an implied slight, John.
> For if we want to be fair with Christianity in our
> criticisms and not appear to them as people who
> will deny anything to escape the claims of the
> gospel, then we should be fair with them. That’s
> my goal.
Here again you are *fixated* with denial and show no interest in evidence. What has being fair to christians got to do with understanding the birth of christianity?
> But even if we give them the benefit of doubt on
> this non-essential issue we still have a massive
> amount of evidence and arguments against their
> faith.
Again, talking about evidence without ever showing any. I would rather you got down to it argued a case for the existence of Jesus, rather than this sort of comment.
> The bottom line is that one cannot be that
> skeptical about the evidence of the past or else
> one could also use that same skepticism to
> deny the Holocaust happened, which a few do.
Skepticism is healthy, John. It allows you not to be bamboozled as you seem to be at the moment. You give the impression of not having anything up your sleeve to justify your position regarding the existence of Jesus, so you seek to talk about anything but that. You even commit the faux pas of dragging the holocaust into the discussion -- usually a very bad sign regarding the users content.
> I stand with the overwhelming peer-reviewed
> scholars who think Jesus was a real person
> and that he was a doomsday prophet.
You've already made that abundantly clear, but you haven't supplied any reason why. You've just talked about textual evidence without proffering any. Given lots of opportunities you haven't taken advantage of them to say anything tangible for the position you adhere to.
> Since that’s the case the burden is on you
> to show otherwise, and you have not done this.
And once again, the cop-out. While putting forward a substantive position you say: "I'm on the right side, so you have to show evidence first and I don't." Any substantive position requires the evidence put forward. As you apparently have no evidence you are simply try to shift the burden of proof. It doesn't matter how old an unsubstantiated claim is, if it is unsubstantiated then it has no value. So, will you make the effort and do what your colleagues refuse to do, ie substantiate your claims or will you refuse and pretend that the burden isn't on the claimant?
- spin December 23, 2008 11:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
To say "Paul never met Jesus and only had a vision of him on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:19)" is simply not true. A vision does not make one go blind. John the revelator had a vision of Christ but did not go blind. Also Paul claimed to be an apostle and the term apostle arises from Roman practice. It is a compound word made up of the preposition "apo" which most narrowly means "from" plus the very "stello" which means "to send". In every case, of course, an "apostle" in the Roman world would be a qualified appointee, someone with specific authority and specific insight on the matter at hand. Thus Paul encountered the bodily risen Christ inside time and space and was "sent from" Christ to do a specific job. Paul met both qualifications for being an apostle of Jesus Christ.
Qualification one, is that the apostle be someone appointed by Christ Himself, carrying the authority designated by Christ and who was thoroughly familiar with the issues surrounding the Christ, his mission and work.
Qualification two, An Apostle had to be an eyewitness to the resurrection of the Christ.
No doubt Saul meet the bodily risen Christ and went through such a dramatic change of heart there is little doubt that he encountered the creator of the Universe. That is, God in the flesh as Jesus the Christ. The argument against a historical Christ is very weak at best no matter whether you are a believe or not.
- chemist January 7, 2009 11:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
There is not one historical verification of any significant character or event in the New Testament. Not one.
The sparse sidelong half-references that make up the body of "historical evidence" for the existence of JC are nearly all suspect or so vague as to not qualify for suspicion.
The 'textual evidence' is synthesized from thousands of invidually discordant sources by only people with ulterior motives, severe conflicts of interest, or precise intent to manipulate.
There IS NO argument for a historical Christ, no matter if are's beliefings you...
- Submariner September 21, 2009 11:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
John W. Loftus claims for some reason that it is important in this debate to present "a theory for the origin of a cultic movement". This is actually false. The debate is whether Jesus was a historical figure or not. Such as theory as Loftus would like is a separate issue which he would like to link to the central topic in order to have an opposing position he can attack. This is not helpful in understanding whether Jesus existed or not. This latter requires evidence to support it and so far Loftus is empty-handed on the subject. Few deny that there were believers in a religion centered on Jesus at least from the time of the proselytizing efforts of the apostle Paul. The gospels were all written after the time of Paul and have nothing to suggest their historicity, so we must start with Paul. What evidence is there that there was a religion before he started his proselytizing efforts? Unfortunately, Paul doesn't give much scope for a Jesus-centered religion before his time as he claims that he derived his gospel from a revelation, and specifically not from other people.
Loftus of course can derive from my comments here "a theory for the origin of a cultic movement". If he does, he should know that it is not being sold as definitive, but as one alternate means of dealing with the data. One needn't commit to one side or the other in this debate, for I don't think there is sufficient evidence to take a side.
- spin December 23, 2008 12:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
When presenting a case that Jesus did not exist it is not a complete case until or unless one tells us how the Jesus movement started. If you say you just don't know, then that non-answer must be taken into account by someone who is assessing the whole case. He must compare that non-answer to the alternative view, my view. Now you're agnostic about the whole issue so you can get by saying you don't know. But others who do take a position on this issue must tell us how the Jesus cult began, if they can.
Besides, being skeptical of the past is easy, isn't it? Anyone can do it. Just say "I don't know," and then pick apart all of the arguments by showing they don't prove their case. What standard of proof you're looking for needs to be explained and justified and shown to be consistent across the board for examining any historical claim. I don't think you would never make a good historian. A historian must make a claim based on the available evidence he has at his disposal, otherwise the number of pages in his book will be extremely small.
- John W Loftus December 23, 2008 10:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You are having difficulties understanding the simple problem here. I want to see some evidence that Jesus existed. You claim that he did. Demonstrate it. You are acting like a lawyer who has no case, so wants to destroy the case of his opponent to give the impression that he has something to say. This is not a useful approach. You make a claim: you defend it. I can wait until you do and tell you while waiting that you have failed to do your job. You are here making claims. That requires, umm, evidence.
If I make the claim that everything in the universe is shrinking and you say prove it, would you accept a response that you've got no reason to doubt my position is sufficient? I should hope not. A substantive case asks for proof. You seem to suffer from a permanent case of burden shifting.
Where is your evidence that Jesus existed? It is not sufficient to ask how else could christianity have started? I have already provided a functional and more economical alternative based on textual evidence to kick-start you in providing evidence for your own position. You continue not to be forthcoming. You continue to tell me that someone who takes "a position on this issue must tell us how the Jesus cult began". You are derailing the subject. The question is not how christianity began, but if Jesus existed. If you cannot see your own problem, then you should seek help.
You need to know that I am well aware of the process of doing history, but unlike you I get my hands dirty with evidence. I consult and cite texts. I tend to use primary sources much more than the people I discuss issues with. A case is made on evidence. If your evidence can be picked apart in a reasoned manner, you haven't done the job. You are left making outlandish claims like "I don't think you would never make a good historian." I think you should read some of the more recent histories. They tend to proffer lots of evidence. I can't get any out of you. I fear you don't understand what is necessary.
- spin December 23, 2008 12:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
In my final argument that I posted below you admitted Paul believed Jesus was a real person because Paul believed Jesus was crucified. That's where I said there is nothing left to say to you, because there is nothing much more I can say to you. The case is now closed with you.
Just tell me how you arrived at this conclusion, okay? What evidence is there for this belief of yours, i.e., that Paul believed Jesus was a real person? You do it on the basis of textual evidence, just like me. For you to go on to deny Paul's claim is being reckless with the textual evidence. Who better than Paul to tell us what was the case? If you can deny Paul's testimony to a non-miraculous claim about the original cult leader then you can deny anything. As I meant to say, I don't think you would ever make a good historian.
But just in case I'm wrong about you what kind of evidence are you looking for? If you're looking for a coin with an image on it that says "This is Jesus and yes spin, he was a real person," then that is simply an unreasonable request. In fact, if one can discount textual evidence as easily as you do then only a very rare number of people in the past could be demonstrated to have existed by historians. And even if we found a coin like that you could deny the text engraved upon it just like you deny what Paul said. Again, that's being reckless with history. You would never make a good historian.
- John W Loftus December 23, 2008 12:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This was what I said:
> I have no doubt that Paul thought Jesus was a real person
> somehow. Otherwise christ crucified would be
> meaningless to him. However what he believed doesn't
> necessarily reflect reality, does it? He didn't know a real
> Jesus, so he didn't need one to believe he was real, and
> this was true for his communities who only received Jesus
> from him.
You locked onto the first two sentences and ignored the rest. Not a wise approach to complex issues. Did you note the point about what one believes and what is are not necessarily the same thing? I don't know how to make this clear to you than to say that a belief need not reflect reality. Paul believed that there was a Jesus. Does that belief mean that it was a reality? Doh! You seem to be terribly confused.
As to the fact that their is nothing much more you can say to me, that's too bad, because you've said nothing to your claim that Jesus existed.
The source for my understanding of Paul's belief that Jesus was real comes from 1 Cor 15:12-19. The parallel is between Jesus and anyone else who died. He is arguing against the notion that those who died in christ have perished: if Jesus was not resurrected then no-one can be and Paul and his communities are of all peoples most to be pitied. Jesus was real to Paul, otherwise resurrection wouldn't work.
You then try to argue against my analysis that because Paul had no contact with a real live Jesus, so didn't need one to believe that there was one. You claim that my understanding is reckless with the textual evidence, even though my understanding is strictly base don that evidence. Paul had no direct knowledge of a Jesus and neither did any of his converts and neither did any of the converts of his converts and so on. Is it so hard for you to understand that Paul didn't need a real Jesus to believe that Jesus was real?
What you still cannot fathom is that you are trying to extract history from a collection of traditions without showing any criteria for doing so. I am shocked at your persistent refusal to do the job you claim to to be here for. Your task is functionally like that of a prosecution lawyer. You have to present a substantive case with an array of evidence to bring about your conviction. Instead you sit back in your chair and twiddle your thumbs, waiting for the other person to say something.
One can present irrefutable evidence for the battle of Kadesh and the subsequent treaty between the Hittites and the Egyptians. This evidence is derived from materials found both in Egypt and in Hatti. We even have copies of the treaties from both sides. The evidence can be checked. One can then present evidence based on that treaty relationship and so build up a historical web of interrelated information, starting with something extremely tangible and going with the textual evidence from that point.
However, in the case of christianity, so far we haven't got to first base. No-one has demonstrated any evidence which leads to substantiation of the central underpinnings of christianity. If you don't have a place to start then no history can be reconstructed.
Can you extract history from the Arthurian traditions? Did Arthur exist? Can you extract history from the Robin Hood traditions? Did Robin Hood exist? Can you extract history from the Homer traditions? Did Homer exist?
I have tried to clarify your epistemological problem. You need to have a way to show *how* you know what you claim to know. Your attempts at shifting the burden and your insults are not substitute. The historian must deal with epistemology. Your empty-handed approach to history to me is reckless. While you continue to deny your basic responsibility to demonstrate your case, you invalidate yourself from making meaningful statements about history and historians.
- spin December 23, 2008 1:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Mr Zindler, you begin your list of arguments with an untruth. Not really the greatest first impression to give. You say, “To be sure, I knew that some of the world’s greatest scholars had denied his existence.” Sir, unless you have no idea who are and who are not leading experts in NT and ancient historical studies, that is simply a lie. Among current scholars of the NT and ancient history, these online discussion of the so-called “Christ myth” are considered to be the equivalent of discussing the Holocaust hoax among historians of WWII. Both are in fact, quite similar. Both speak primarily to a certain group (Neo Nazis/ Bible skeptics). Both are immensely popular in these two groups online communities. Both distort evidence, use outdated scholarship, ridiculous arguments, and askew the whole method used to do historical work. G.A. Wells in not an expert. Hence, quoting any of his words relating to historical Jesus issues is like asking Tom Cruise to professionally diagnose a psychological disorder. I’m not saying either are non-intelligent men, but neither have the education or training in the right fields. As such, their views amount to little more than layman commentary. Furthermore, Earl Doherty is not an expert in NT studies or ancient history. Nor is Acharya S, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, Arthur Drews, Dan Barker, Rook Hawkins etc etc. Thus, I really couldn’t care less what any of these people have to say about Jesus, Paul, Peter, Josephus, Tacitus, or the Gospels anymore than I would take seriously a skinhead who hands me a pamphlet on how the Jews conspired to give Hitler a bad name. Or a psycho evangelical who tells me he saw a vision of Jesus who showed him the apocalyptic future of the USA. Conversley, here is a list of modern scholars of NT and ancient history, both Christian and non, who endorse Jesus of Nazareth as a historical personage: NT Wright, Richard Bauckham, D. MacDonald, Edwin Yamauchi, Robert Van Voorst, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Gerd Ludemann, John Meier, Craig Blomberg, Bart Erhman, James Tabor and so on. I have to wonder why you reject the one thing that all of these fellows, and it is hard to find two NT scholars who agree on anything, agree on and choose to side with non-scholarly, internet community. If you want to say that these atheist internet denizens and quiz-masters have convinced you that Jesus didn’t exist, then say so. But do not try to give the impression that you have simply decided b/w two scholarly discussed options. Modern NT scholars have declared the historicity of Jesus to be so certain, that questioning it is more the result of an inability to deal with reality than anything else.
- fenrir23 December 17, 2008 10:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
There is substantially more evidence for Jesus than any other Jewish man during that time period. That's good enough for me.
- ufcarazy January 23, 2009 12:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
But faith in God and His only son Jesus Christ is such a personal decision that I hesitate to try to convince anyone. I just know that when I look out these windows that life is too beautiful, too organized, to mysterious to just give breath to us humans for a few years and then we die, nothing more. I think not. We have eternal spirits and I think that is more of the burden of proof than whether God or His son Jesus is real because once you realize you have an eternal soul and a spiritual persona, a spirit which is more you than your physcial self, then you have to admit there is eternal life and then you have to ask yourself if I have an eternal soul/spirit then what happens at death.
Funerals happening all around us and is that it? Is that all life is, a birth, hard work, and a head stone? I dont think so. I think life is the tip of the iceberg, there is a life so much fuller and richer than we could ever imagine. But here I go preaching again. Its your decision. I choose to believe in God and in His only son Jesus and I hope to see you in heaven, but if I dont, Ill be the one jumping up and down saying...WE WON...WE WON!
- Hope7 July 14, 2009 2:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Ill be the one jumping up and down saying...WE WON...WE WON!"
Gloating over someones eternal torment doesn't seem very Christian.
- MrBook July 14, 2009 9:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If someone chooses that route who can stop them? I would rather we all be there but I think that is too naive. I just see things differently is all. I did sound arrogant didnt I?That was wrong of me. I dont mean too.
- Hope7 July 15, 2009 9:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It would be hard for me to be happy over any one going to hell.That statement is way out there!JESUS saves.
- countryboy July 18, 2009 5:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Roman documents
Pliny the Younger wrote to the Emperor Trajan about the year 110 AD asks his superior what they should do with the Christians who’s impact has seen many of the pagan temples being abandoned. He admits that the Christians have a great many followers and that they sing hymns to Christ as if he were god. He wants to know what to do about the situation.
Suetonius, Roman historian, in his “Lives of the Twelve Caesars, speaks about the expulsion of the Jews from the city of Rome for causing disturbances at the behest of Chrestus.
The existence of Christ by the Roman historians is taken for granted
Tacitus writes about the burning of Rome and cruelly punishing the Christians. He also mentions the founder, Christus, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius.
Jewish historian Josephus. He refers to Christ twice about winning over many converts. Christ’s existence is never questioned.
The Talmund refers to Yeshu’a of Nazareth, that he practiced sorcery (performed miracles) and led Israel astray and mocked the wise, that he was crucified as a false teacher.
- Big O December 16, 2008 6:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Sir, you cannot believe this to be logical argumentation. First, since NT Wright is such a prominent researcher of ancient history, I would think you’d take his opinion more seriously. I’m afraid your atheist bias is showing here. Bishop Wright’s statement is completely justified. The point is, denying Jesus existed, considering the huge body of evidence we have on him as a poor, Jewish, itinerant preacher of God’s Kingdom in the first half of first century Palestine, would be more difficult than denying Tiberius Caesar existence with all the evidence we have for him being the Roman emperor at that time. Moreover, since it is your opinion that goes against the vast scholarly consensus here, you carry the burden of proof. And again I must emphasize, it is you who has elected to choose the opinion of non-experts like Doherty, Wells, and Drews, rather than the work of recognized scholars of NT and ancient history. Therefore, you must provide the evidence to overcome this field-wide consensus. No silence argument admissible, as these show nothing more than, well, silence. But back to your comparison, you cannot seriously be trying to compare the archelogical/textual evidence for the Caesar of the Roman Empire to the archelogical/textual evidence for a poor Jewish peasant who was crucified as a heretic and seditionist, can you? These are two totally different people of two very different contemporary importance. Do you expect to find coins minted for Jesus? Walls erected in his honor? Perhaps you don’t know, but Christianity was outlawed in the Roman empire for the first three centuries of its existence and viciously persecuted. It is amazing that we have the vast body of evidence that we do when we consider how much the pagans destroyed in terms of Christian documents. It is not surprising that we find more textual evidence than anything else. And here, Jesus’ attestation far outweighs Casear’s. Fianlly, how do you know that scholars are not wrong or lying about the “evidence” they have for Tiberius Caesar? How do you know such evidence exists at all? Have you ever seen it? Held it? Perhaps your not being skeptical enough here. After all, if a handful of Jews could manufacture a story about another nobody Jew, than what about the whole of the Roman empires power attempting to re-write history?
- fenrir23 December 17, 2008 9:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The onus is on those challenging the prevailing paradigm. In this case, that would be mythicists.
- obrienr December 17, 2008 1:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We are not dealing with paradigms and history is not democratic. It is a tyranny based on whatever evidence can be brought to bear on the issue. Without evidence you can't claim historicity. An untested historical theory, whether it is popular or not, has no historical weight. History is only interested in the evidence, so, no matter the subterfuge, eventually it comes down to whether there is evidence for a historical Jesus or not.
Instead of committing to one view or another it is better to weight for the evidence and then make a rational decision based on that evidence. Until then it is wiser not to commit and, if you can't help committing, be prepared to change at the drop of a piece of evidence.
- spin December 22, 2008 4:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
There is little doubt that there was a man by the name of Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate because he and his small sect of Judaism made both the Romans and the mainstream Jewish authorities nervous. He is mentioned both by his followers and his executioners. Whether or not he was the Messiah prophesied in the Torah/Old Testament, a Prophet, a magician, or a David Khoresh-style lunatic, or anything else are up for debate. Obviously, evidence for someone who at that time was some non-citizen nobody being crucified out in the provinces is going to be signifigantly less than that of an Emperor.
- richardsonkr January 13, 2009 8:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Sir, First, I have not read through all of the comments on this site and concerning this issue, so I may be a little ill informed as to all their content. It is abundantly clear to me that Jesus is a myth, a powerful myth, but a myth nonetheless. There is so little so called historical evidence that it is laughable. Evidence has to be unbiased and quiet separate from any "religious" writings. There are a few references that could be construed as being about Jesus but unless you have seen and read these in their original form, I suggest that you treat them as suspect. I do not read Aramaic, ancient Greek or ancient Latin and do not trust christian translations of such texts and it is almost impossible to find any non-religious, non-christian, proof for the existence of Jesus Christ. The myth lives on and may still have some power to do some good...but it is undoubtedly a myth. I am not particularly christian in my outlook but then again I do not espouse non-christian ethics. I do like what I read within Taoist texts and incidentally The Tao Te Jing was written by Lao Tse and Lao Tse never existed. Lao Tse means Old Man and implies wisdom...Betty
- Betty January 20, 2009 5:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There is substantially more evidence for Jesus than any other Jewish man during that time period. That's good enough for me.
- ufcarazy January 23, 2009 12:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Really? I am curious about this "substantial evidence". There is no birth certificate, no record of birth, there certificates or official records of any kind that I know of. I know there are "writings" and "stories". Let me out it like this, there are more stories and writings about Santa Claus than there are for Jesus, thus, I am wondering, who were these poor souls for whom there is even less evidence? Saying "there is evidence" does not magically create this evidence, you have cite the evidence (i.e. tell us who wrote it, when they wrote it, where we can read it or see it, etc). It is no good quoting Biblical sources as your evidence, for as we all know...In early Christianity, there are few materials between the time of Christ's crucifixion (around 30 CE) to the first gospels (after 70 CE). It is as if "people forgot, and then remembered again". Paul does not speak of many historical details of the life of Jesus, e.g. Mary, Judas, etc. Paul doesn't believe that Jesus was ever a human being. In fact, he doesn't even appear to be aware of the idea. I suggest you read your Bible with more awareness.
- Betty January 28, 2009 12:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php /Existence_Of_Jesus
- ufcarazy January 28, 2009 2:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Jesus obviously was born, and he did die." - Prof. Bart Ehrman, The Historical Jesus, lecture 3 time 00:02, The Teaching Co
"the extreme historical skepticism that has marked most Jesus study in this century is abating." - Jesus: A New Vision, Marcus Borg, p. 15
"Classicists have remarked that if the canons for historical reliability that have been erected for the Bible had been required in their studies, our view of the Greco-Roman world (which seems to be reasonably in place) would be in shambles." - The World's Religions, Huston Smith, p. 318.
- ufcarazy January 28, 2009 2:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Not one of your three references amounts "evidence". They are opinions.
Evidence, for example:
Question:
Did Julius Caeser exist?
Answers:
1. An unflattering portrait of Caesar found near Tusculum, carved during Caesar's own lifetime. Later portraits invariably showed Caesar wearing a laurel crown – to hide his receding hairline.
2. There are coins surviving from the relevant period with Julius Caeser's name and portrait.
3. Contemporary Witnesses to Caesar
i. Cicero - Orations and Letters provide eyewitness evidence of Caesar
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) was almost an exact contemporary of Julius Caesar. In Caesar's struggle with Pompey, Cicero, governor of Cilicia, sided with Pompey but was subsequently pardoned by Caesar.
In March of 44 BC Cicero was a witness to Caesar's murder, though he was not a part of the conspiracy.
Following the assassination, Cicero made a series of speeches known as the "Philippics" which called on the Senate to support Octavian against Mark Antony. Cicero's "Second Phillipics" was an eulogy of Caesar's conquest of Gaul.
Unfortunately for Cicero Octavian reached a temporary rapprochement with Antony, who then ordered Cicero's murder.
Among some 900 preserved letters to and from Cicero are correspondence both about and with Caesar.
"... if Caesar does lose his head all the same, Pompey feels only the deepest contempt for him, trusting in his own and the state's troops..."
Cicero to Atticus, 7.8, 50BC.
ii. Sallust - Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".
iii. Nepos - Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".
iv. Catullus - Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".
v. Asinius Pollio - Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.
vi. Virgil - Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".
vii. Ovid - Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD): Metamorphoses".
Near Contemporary Witnesses
i. Velleius Paterculus (c19 BC-32 AD): "Historiae Romanae".
ii. Lucan (Marcus Annaeus Lucanus, 39-65 AD) followed the example of his grandfather, Seneca the Elder – a young contemporary of Caesar – who in later life wrote a history of Rome. Lucan wrote his own Pharsalia approximately a century after the civil war it chronicles, using Seneca's work as an eye-witness source.
iii. Plutarch of Chaeronea (45-120 AD) was a Greek moralist, historian and biographer (and priest of Delphi). He wrote his Parallel Lives (matching Greek with Roman lives) during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian. He describes in detail the life and assassination of Julius Caesar (as well as Marcus Brutus and Mark Antony).
iv. Appian of Alexandria (c.95-165 AD): Civil Wars.
v. The most famous biographer of Caesar, Tranquillus Suetonius, wrote his Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of emperor Hadrian (117-138). Suetonius was in charge of the imperial archives and in this capacity, had access to some of the best possible information.
When you can find "evidence" of that caliber then you have proof. But "Jesus: A New Vision" by Marcus Borg was published in 1991, and not 2,000 years ago. It is not evidence. Likewise, "The World's Religions" by Huston Smith; 1991 (if I have the correct version). I cannot verify your lecturer.
There is no evidence for the existence of anyon called Jesus Christ who did all those things we read about in the Bible. It is a myth. And one based upon many previous versions of the same myth. Tell me, do you think that all those previous telling so this myth were the work of your Devil?
- Betty January 28, 2009 7:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Not one of your three references amounts "evidence". They are opinions. "
- They are the professional opinions of individuals who are trained in gathering the evidence and critically evaluated that evidence. I trust their evidence-based opinions oh so much more than I trust the ideology-based opinions of anti-Christians. Further, citing the date of those two books to argue against Jesus is just as logical as citing the date of The Origin of Species to argue against evolution because, as you know, Darwin wasn't around when life developed.
"And one based upon many previous versions of the same myth."
- I do not have sufficient evidence for this hypothesis. Good luck providing me with evidence that I consider adequate. I will be critiquing it according to the very standards anti-rationalists use to argue against the historical Jesus.
Bart Ehrman source: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=643
- ufcarazy January 28, 2009 10:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The whole point of "contemporary evidence" is that it was written down by people who were there. Your three sources were not there. Thank you for your responses. I give up. You win. Jesus existed.
- Betty January 29, 2009 7:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century."
That really is only a half-truth mr. Zindler. As Bauckham notes in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, the Gospels as Eyewitness testimony", there really is no way the Gospel recipients did not know who wrote the Gospels. In works which are *internally* anonymous, the name was usually affixed to the outside of the scroll, probably on a seal. Combine this with the near-universal agreement among later Christians of the authorship, the evidence seems rather overwhelming.
"with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds."
I highly highly doubt that you would be able to provide a reference in Iranaeus' works which provides that argument. Maybe he was drawing coincidences between the four corners and the Gospels, but I highly doubt that he concluded that there were only 4 reliable Gospels on the basis that there are four corners of the earth.
"we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth."
once again, the near-universal conviction of the later Christians seems to imply that the traditions are very old. Secondly, if the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, they're still reliable because, as Bauckham has exhaustively demonstrated, the Gospel tradition is extensively rooted in eyewitness testimony.
"At a minimum, this forces us to examine the gospels to see if their contents are even compatible with the notion that they were written by eye-witnesses. We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor."
The New Testament has an incredibly wide textual basis (dozens of ancient manuscripts, 2 independent lines of manuscript tradition from before the 3rd century), unless you have manuscript evidence that there were later redactors, we have to assume that they had only one author.
"Both writers plagiarize (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark"
I wish to give 3 counter-points
1: Who is mark? mark was a student of Peter as Papias notes. Mark's testimony would have been invaluable in writing a life of Jesus
2: No one here is claiming that Luke was an eyewitness
3: Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy have argued that Matthew and luke did not actually borrow from Mark, but given the primarily oral environment of the first century, they probably had access to the same traditions being retold around Christendom.
"to which they add sayings of Jesus and would-be historical details."
If you are saying that they fabricated sayings and details (and the tone seems to indicate such), then this is a positve claim which requires positive evidence. As Christopher Hitchens once said, claims which can be asserted without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence
"Ignoring the fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus - and thus cannot both be correct"
ROFL. The geneology of Jesus is by no stretch of the imagination a "critical detail". at the very best it is an incidental detail which indicates independent streams of tradition.
"A real eye-witness would have begun with a verse reading, "Now, boys and girls, I'm gonna tell you the story of Jesus the Messiah the way it really happened..." The story would be a unique creation."
once again, Mark's testimony=Peter's testimony. Peter was a member of the INNER CIRCLE. Matthew and John the Elder were not part of hte inner circle.
"It is significant that it is only these two gospels that purport to tell anything of Jesus' birth, childhood, or ancestry."
Yes it is significant because as Burridge notes, it is but one factor which places the Gospels firmly in the bios genre. That alone gives us a nice a priori reason to trust their reporting.
"Both can be dismissed as unreliable without further cause."
I would strongly suggest you read "The Jesus Legend" by Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd, and "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham if you seriously think that mere doubt as to eyewitness authorship casts serious doubt upon the Gospels.
- migkillertwo December 18, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"The titles "According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second century."
That really is only a half-truth mr. Zindler. As Bauckham notes in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, the Gospels as Eyewitness testimony", there really is no way the Gospel recipients did not know who wrote the Gospels. In works which are *internally* anonymous, the name was usually affixed to the outside of the scroll, probably on a seal. Combine this with the near-universal agreement among later Christians of the authorship, the evidence seems rather overwhelming.
"with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical" gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds."
I highly highly doubt that you would be able to provide a reference in Iranaeus' works which provides that argument. Maybe he was drawing coincidences between the four corners and the Gospels, but I highly doubt that he concluded that there were only 4 reliable Gospels on the basis that there are four corners of the earth.
"we come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth."
once again, the near-universal conviction of the later Christians seems to imply that the traditions are very old. Secondly, if the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, they're still reliable because, as Bauckham has exhaustively demonstrated, the Gospel tradition is extensively rooted in eyewitness testimony.
"At a minimum, this forces us to examine the gospels to see if their contents are even compatible with the notion that they were written by eye-witnesses. We cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or redactor."
The New Testament has an incredibly wide textual basis (dozens of ancient manuscripts, 2 independent lines of manuscript tradition from before the 3rd century), unless you have manuscript evidence that there were later redactors, we have to assume that they had only one author.
"Both writers plagiarize (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel of Mark"
I wish to give 3 counter-points
1: Who is mark? mark was a student of Peter as Papias notes. Mark's testimony would have been invaluable in writing a life of Jesus
2: No one here is claiming that Luke was an eyewitness
3: Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy have argued that Matthew and luke did not actually borrow from Mark, but given the primarily oral environment of the first century, they probably had access to the same traditions being retold around Christendom.
"to which they add sayings of Jesus and would-be historical details."
If you are saying that they fabricated sayings and details (and the tone seems to indicate such), then this is a positve claim which requires positive evidence. As Christopher Hitchens once said, claims which can be asserted without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence
"Ignoring the fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus - and thus cannot both be correct"
ROFL. The geneology of Jesus is by no stretch of the imagination a "critical detail". at the very best it is an incidental detail which indicates independent streams of tradition.
"A real eye-witness would have begun with a verse reading, "Now, boys and girls, I'm gonna tell you the story of Jesus the Messiah the way it really happened..." The story would be a unique creation."
once again, Mark's testimony=Peter's testimony. Peter was a member of the INNER CIRCLE. Matthew and John the Elder were not part of hte inner circle.
"It is significant that it is only these two gospels that purport to tell anything of Jesus' birth, childhood, or ancestry."
Yes it is significant because as Burridge notes, it is but one factor which places the Gospels firmly in the bios genre. That alone gives us a nice a priori reason to trust their reporting.
"Both can be dismissed as unreliable without further cause."
I would strongly suggest you read "The Jesus Legend" by Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd, and "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham if you seriously think that mere doubt as to eyewitness authorship casts serious doubt upon the Gospels.
- migkillertwo December 18, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
In addition to your comments, I consider Paul as one who was extremely intent on "converting" people and getting followers.
As an example: in order to reduce resistance to conversion he made a concerted effort to completely eliminate circumcision as any kind of a requirement for becoming a christian. He knew that besides the any physical trauma of the circumcision itself the Greeks, Romans and others frowned on the practice. Many were anti semitic enough to want no part of being identified in such fashion with anything Jewish. In addition to this the mindset was such that exposure of the glans was to be at an absolute minimum. It was fine for anyone in the olympics to be nude- but only if the glans were covered by the foreskin.
Hal 84
- Hal 84 December 24, 2008 9:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Since the author takes 1 Corinthians to be written by Paul, we should look at 1Cor 15. There he describes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus as a historical event that was witnessed by hundreds of people, "most of whom are still living." He wouldn't say that if this was a made up story.
A little later in the same work, Paul says he'll be sending some of the Corinthian believers to Judea. Where they can meet some of those witnesses. He wouldn't do that if he was trying to put something over on them.
- ChrisB July 15, 2009 9:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Paul tells us at the beginning of Galatians that he is an apostle neither from man nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the father... and taking up the idea in 1:11f he explains that his gospel was neither according to man or taught by man, but received by revelation of Jesus Christ. He is clear that his gospel of the crucified Christ was not something derived from his predecessors. He was chosen before birth and called through grace, when God revealed his Son to Paul.
Mr Holding doesn't seem to perceive the significance of this regarding Paul as a witness to Jesus. It is not merely that Paul wasn't a direct witness to Jesus, but that his knowledge of him came through a revelation, not from a source in this world. There is no indication in Galatians that the Jerusalem group, though apparently messianists, even knew anything about Jesus.
I don't think Tacitus ever claimed that he got his knowledge of Nero from a revelation.
- spin December 24, 2008 4:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Maybe some enterprising apologist can explain why Paul, so utterly concerned to write volumes about the gospel of salvation, never once quotes Jesus to substantiate his arguments, when in the nature of the case, a quotation from Jesus would be the absolute end of all argument.
Can you imagine Billy Graham preaching sermons for ten years and never once quoting the bible?
Wouldn't that make you scratch your head and think something was amiss?
Then neither can we imagine apostle Paul giving gospel and doctrinal instruction to his Christian converts and never once quoting Jesus, which supplies rational warrant to skeptics who say the gospel sayings of Jesus was either:
a - a late fabrications after Paul or
b - existed in Paul's day, but spelled out a very legalistic Jewish Christianity that Paul, the good businessman, knew his prospective Gentile audiences would not wish to align themselves with.
Oh, before I forget, one good argument that Acts is nothing more than spin-doctored history to support Paul's ministry, is it's ridiculous portrayal of the apostles quoting the Old Testament to settle the question of Gentile salvation (Acts 15). If this had truly been a meeting of the original apostles with other legalistic "believers", well, everybody present would thus accept the authority of Jesus. But nobody is quoting Jesus to settle a question about how somebody gets saved?!
Like I said, Acts is nothing but Pauline propaganda, and conservative scholars have never adequately addressed these unexpected omissions.
- greg 6 January 1, 2009 11:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mr Zindler,
I must presume you entered into this debate to attempt to show why you believe the way you do regarding Jesus. I entered into this forum with the hope of being challenged and to apply what I am learning at credentialed institutions, being taught by men and women with degrees and doctorates in this area. What I have instead found, is simply another “Christ myth” soapbox. I suppose one more couldn’t hurt, the net is filled with them.
You have addressed none of the questions or comments put to you, you have only barely bothered yourself to address one of Holding’s arguments, and that was so poor it truly made me feel sorry for you. This is pretty much all you have done:
1) Dodged questions.
2) Criticized “apologists”. Who apparantly everyone except you and your secondary sources are.
3) Demonstrated a profound ignorance of contemporary historical methods and applications.
4) Downplayed the work of true, modern, and credentialed ancient historians.
5) Attempt to overturn their work with those of people who wrote nearly 175 years ago. (Remsburg)
6) Attempt to overturn their work with non-historians like Wells and Smith.
7) Spout undocumented assertions (usually backed by fellows from 5 or 6 above without citations)
8) Give a plug to your own book (another laymans viewpoint)
9) Hurled so many elephants your back must be killing you.
You have demonstrated that you know nothing more than the work of psychotic hyper-skeptics from the 19th century, and that you feel better laying with these fellows rather than with current researchers. Why? Well, because they don’t agree with your position. Because as you said to Mr Holding in your only reply, you see it as an “appeal to authority”. JP already answered your confusion with that logical fallacy so I will not go any deeper there.
As for the rest, there is no such thing as a “fact that speaks for itself”. This merely shows how amateurish and naïve you view of ancient historiography is. All facts are filtered and compared with other evidence from before, contemporary with, and after said facts appear in the historical record. The people in the world who do this for a living with regard to the NT are, I’m gonna say it again, historians of the ancient world and the ancient Christian Church.
Are we free to question an accepted historical hypothesis? Sure. But to completely overturn such a huge consensus, that is clearly supported with such a huge body of evidence, and supported by the historical/critical method developed by cotemporary historians, you need to have so much evidence and valid arguments that undertaking such a task would, most assuredly, lead one to see that the reason its so hard to do is because the “Christ myth” is unsupported, anti-historical junk.
All I see is your arguments are, essentially, “All contemporary historical study is wrong. Flawed to the core. They just aren’t smart enough to see it yet. But I do, myself and my little band of outdated, irrelevant and all around useless secondary sources are leading the charge screaming, ‘Change history or we’ll keep screaming until we fool enough people to force you to!’”
Mr Zindler, all you are doing is making it hard for people who know nothing about these topics, and making it easier for people to accept things like the “Holocaust Hoax”. Don’t like the history being taught? Change it! That may have worked in the old Soviet Union (ironically enough, they pushed pounds or propaganda saying Jesus didn’t live down peoples throats), but it will not work here.
History isn’t written so Frank Zindler can put his “stamp of approval” on it. For this reason, and all the ones listed above, I will not bother you anymore. I must classify this whole charade as “Not Worth Anyone’s Time.” Least of all mine.
- fenrir23 December 18, 2008 7:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
My main objection with followers of Christ is they see it as their duty to convert everyone. Also anyone that does not follow Christ is some type of lower than human not worthy of walking this earth. As in the crusades and today in the war on drugs an illegal war supported by the followers to enslave people that do not think as they do. The modern day crusades used to further their goals punish anyone that does not follow Christ.
I have lived my life by the golden rule and would pass through the gates of heaven with no problem more so than many organized religious zealots.
- Cherokee Fred hussein December 26, 2008 1:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Just how does the behavior (or misbehavior) or present day Christians relate to whether Jesus actually existed? Furthermore, no one that I know personally who professes to be a Christian matches the characterization of believing that non-Christians should be treated as less than human. Traditional Christian doctrine bases salvation not on any alleged superiority or merit of the saved, but on Jesus doing for sinners that which they could not do for themselves (it is not my intention to preach here, but to explain what seems to be a misunderstanding). Finally, there's no explanation as to why seeking to convert someone is inherently wrong. Is it not the "conversion" of others to one's viewpoint one of the primary purposes of debate?
- Deof Movestofca December 31, 2008 4:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thanks!
- Questions are the door to knowledge April 19, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Was Jesus an Historical Figure?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Organized Religion destroys everything
”I believe it’s quite possible someone like Jesus walked the Earth or maybe it was actually someone named Jesus who was a man of great word and honor…..But that ”Virgin Birth” deal, that’s the one that really throws it ”Out of the Ball Park”, so to speak…...Give me a break…..Would this then mean that the ”Blessed Virgin Mary” is the FIRST female to encounter Artificial Insemenation? Just asking…..Organized Religion destroys everything…..It IS ”The Root of All Evil”.....Happy Holidays!!!
- Odd Duck
December 16, 2008 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Organized religion destroys everything
First, science knows that a virgin birth is possible and shows that you follow the 'what's happening now" crowd of science.
Second, there have been more than 100 million people murdered since 1900 with the majority killed by evolutionists like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pot, etc. Should we disavow evolution and it's follower's because of this.
Your persepective shows your "don't let the facts get in the way of my opinions" philosophy.
- Big O
January 4, 2009 12:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Organized Religion destroys everything.
I guess I didn't take enough Science Courses.
So let me re-state my understanding of this very odd situation.....
I was led to believe(Catholic) that an Angel appeared
to tell the "Virgin" she was to Carry the
Boy Child/Jesus(God's son). And so she did?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....I CAN believe that she (Blessed Virgin Mary,)
WAS, at some point, a Virgin. We "all" are a Virgin at some point in our life.
Not to mention all of the Murders committed by MISSIONARY Folk.
The My God is better than your God, theory.....
Yes, there have always been Mad "Men" on the earth, who love to kill.....
Evolutionist does not equal/mean Murder just as Christianity does not equal/mean murder BUT
many DO kill in the name of their Christian belief.
I'm a Militant Agnostic...i don't know and neither do you.
The Mystery of it ALL.
- Odd Duck
January 7, 2009 10:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no, you're wrong.
it's prejudice hateful dishonest EGO that is evil. That's what you have here, now stop blaming things outside of yourself because you're out of bounds.
- jxzac April 1, 2009 8:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Whence springs evil, then?
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion .
Steven Weinberg
- Enlightened1
September 6, 2009 9:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where is G-d?
God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things.
Baruch Spinoza
Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.
Baruch Spinoza
- quantummechanik
September 6, 2009 1:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
LO
Lots of good people do evil things and they no of no religion .Your statement is way off even for you!
- countryboy
September 6, 2009 3:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Doesn't that make them...
...evil people?
- Enlightened1
September 8, 2009 1:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No one is perfect.
As a Christian I would say no.There just a sinner like all of us.
- countryboy
September 8, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
root of all evil
People are the only constant in religions: Therefore people are the root of evil that they choose, not religion .
- Questions are the door to knowledge
April 19, 2009 3:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wow
First of all, what a jerk-ass statement. Second of all, what is wrong with you that you have only weird, random access to punctuation marks. "Great word and honor"?
- quantummechanik
September 6, 2009 1:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to claims about what the NT does not say.
If the Apocalypse gives no support for the historicity of Jesus, whether or not it is ”an intellectual fossil of the thought-world from which Christianity sprang”, to describe it as such is irrelevant and quarrelsome Lamb, anointed one, savior, and other terms occur frequently in both OT and NT. The terms when appearing in the NT are obviously used most of the time in connection with Jesus. I don’t know how many times \”Lamb\” is mentioned in the NT, but ”astral being” occurs none. It is easier to connect Enuma Elish and the OT, perhaps, to ancient astrology. Unfortunately, to attempt a connection of the New Testament and references to the Lamb with ancient astrology seems a stretch. I hope someone will list the presumed astrological references, as I find that aspect of ancient religions particularly interesting, and believe astrological beliefs have served at times as a bridge from one set of religious beliefs to another. \n\nMuch of what was said in so-called :) refutation of the reality of a Jesus could be said even more convincingly of earlier figures such as Adam, Moses, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Tarquin, Socrates, and Julius Caesar. \n\nIf evidence is reasonable, we should accept it. If some of the evidence is unreasonable, we still should accept the part that is reasonable. Whether or not Jesus raised his physical body from death seems unreasonable, and suffers from a paucity of evidence. There are reasonable alternative explanations to how or why several people claimed to have seen him after his death. However, the fact that Jesus did walk the earth is reasonable, and has sufficient corroboration from a number of primary and secondary sources. I may be mistaken, but I think for Adam, Moses, Confucius, Lao-Tzu, Tarquin, Socrates, and Julius Caesar, we have only secondary sources. Some of the heat in arguments about whether Jesus actually existed is due to [many] Christians teaching that Jesus is God. Since I don’t believe Jesus was God, I don’t have a problem with admitting he existed. Those unconfident or uncomfortable with their atheist faith feel called to deny his existence in order to shut another door to the existence of God. In this case, there’s no one behind the door, so time is wasted on a non-issue, and relevant evidence is ignored or quibbled. ”So-called” seems a redundant description for any label. Some say that the gospels are ”the good news”. “So-called” gospels and “so-called” good news; that’s what people do call them. We could as easily call arguments against the existence of Jesus: ”so-called arguments”. That’s what people call them. When such otherwise redundant caveats as “so-called” are used, a due explanation should be given for their use. The word often only reflects a writer’s unsubstantiated opinion.)
- Forumgitator
December 16, 2008 5:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The inescapable conclusion
The only reasonable conclusion to this argument is that the state of the evidence precludes and will probably always preclude drawing any conclusions about whether there was a real man named Jesus who had something to do with the origin of Christianity. The historical Jesus is unrecoverable, and his mere existence is one of the many things we don't know and aren't going to find out.
Suspending judgment on this issue is not much of a problem for nonbelievers interested in understanding Christianity as a historical phenomenon because, contrary to a well-nigh universal prejudice, knowing the origin of a tradition isn't very important—its the elaboration that creates the significance. The funny thing is, the question is also not particularly important for old-school believers either since establishing the historicity of Jesus is the least of their problems. The authenticity of a paragraph in Josephus isn't going to make the notion that a god-man died for our sins and rose from the dead more or less plausible to anyone who isn't already one of the faithful.
By the way, is anybody considering that there is a third possibility besides the existence or nonexistence of a historical Jesus? It seems perfectly plausible to me that there may have been two or more Jesuses who got melded together as the Jesus of the NT.
- Jim Harrison
December 16, 2008 11:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vardis Fisher
Vardish Fisher, in his "Testament of Man" series, which seems curiously difficult to locate now, included one volume titled (if memory is right) "Jesus Walked Again". He follows a prophet-character, describes others. The main character is sort of a cross between saint, fanatic, doubting Thomas, and crucified savior/criminal. The story is intriguing and the material he presents, supported with references, makes your tertium quid believable. It would not be surprising were we to learn that the story of the real Jesus did get embellished with tales from other figures; in fact, I'm positive it did.
- Forumgitator
December 18, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The real Jesus
I'd trust a contemporary source much more than one 150 yrs later.
But it's not that Jesus existed, but the facts about him have been badly twisted, mostly by Paul, another whom Jesus was never seen by.
Odd that Paul was brought before the early church made up of Jesus' brother James and surviving disciples for lying about Jesus 3x's, the third they almost killed him, No? Yet he is the real founder of Christianity? Doesn't that make one wonder why a liar according to Jesus' brother; started it?
The facts are Jesus was a Jew and followed that belief. Doesn't that make anyone really believing in Jesus have to be Jewish? Christianity started up after Jesus was dead for yrs based on lies Paul made up against the will of the early church.
Now add to that Jesus was killed for overturning the Money changer's tables because he didn't think anyone should make money off of God, No?
Yet it was Paul that introduced money changing back into the church and most churches now are headed by moneychangers wanting 10% just like Jesus fought against? To me it seems that Christianity is therefore based on lies for the money changing priests, clergy that now claim to follow Jesus when they do just what Jesus was against, No?
Another lie is the light brown haired Jesus who almost had to be black or close to it, certainly had kinky black hair, not the light brown, blue eyed one most 'churches' use.
I like Jesus, he was a radical who was for the church not stealing money from it's members which is really why he was killed, No?. Jesus meant for followers to personally find those in need and help them directly, not pay some preacher, a vocation Jesus meant was to be done for free. Jesus worked for a living and thought preachers should do the same, not leach off the followers.
Of course Christianity ignores why Jesus was obscure for his first 30 yrs of life working as a carpenter, not as the son of God?
As far as I can tell most of the new testament Bible was made up or changed to make a few people rich, powerful and everything Jesus hated, is just a bunch of money changers.
It's not Jesus I disagree with, it's his followers!! Jesus seemed to love, care for everyone yet most "Christians" use his name to hate, hurt others. Why? This is all in the bible if one looks realistically instead of the distortion Preachers say.
It's only been 10 yrs since the Southern Baptist finally was able to get enough votes to rule that blacks were human instead of only 3/5's human thus could enslave them. Now it's their pogroms against gays, Jews, other religions, people ect. Not something Jesus would have tolerated. He'd be infuriated against the church done in his name just as he was against the priests in the Temple.
And it's these facts that have made me an atheist. It seems people will believe anything even 2000 yr old stories to be part of a group. They'll hurt, even kill those whom, even family, don't believe as they do. Notice they pick the weak, not so bright people who are too lazy to or not able to think for themselves just so they can belong to a group.
Despite most women until recently died from having too many children the church is still against birth control for their selfish gain of having more sheep to shear. Rather than the women whom they considered man's property, not free people. Not something Jesus would have let happen.
Christianity was made to control people, take their money and power, not about Jesus at all.
Jerryd
- jerryd
December 17, 2008 5:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rich and powerful martyrs!?
That's kind of funny. Not many people got rich or powerful from the early documents that eventually became the current Bibles (with/without various levels of apocrypha). The re-interpretation and degree of strictness in applying certain teachings in the Biblical documents may have benefitted some more than others. For most of the first three hundred years, however, getting involved in Christianity was dangerous. Anyone attempting to change the documents for power or prestige or money - how would he gain that? By the time it became relatively safe to be Christian - in fact, long before that -, there were enough copies of the documents that anyone attempting to change something ran the risk of being run out of town on four horses, drawn and quartered.
That is not to say that different documents did not show differences. They surely did. For the most part, the differences are inconsequential in terms of doctrine (there are a couple of exceptions).
It is possible to project backwards from today to get a false view. Today, some people do get wealthy from preaching. The President-elect's pastor is finishing a one and a half million dollar home for himself. So maybe the early Christian pastors made a killing like that? There seems to be less evidence for that than there is for the existence of Jesus, so I'd have to disbelieve it.
=
That is a common distortion of history. Nobody ever held that blacks (actually, slaves, not blacks) were 3/5 human. They were always considered fully human, save by a few hyper-racists who considered them sub-human. The 3/5 related to the apportionment of delegates to Congress. Since slaves could not vote, non-slave states did not want them included in the head count. To continue the faulty reasoning of slaves being 3/5 human, we would have to recognize that abolitionists didn't consider them human at all! Because abolitionists didn't want them counted as citizens unless they could vote. Which is an absurd slander to place on abolitionists who in fact considered slaves more human than did those people counting them as 3/5 MORE of a person than the abolitionists were doing.
The Southern Baptists were not slavers. Slavery was in place when the Southern Baptists came into separate existence. If I am not mistaken, by that time, importation of slaves was forbidden. If that is accurate, then they could not legally have been importing slaves.
When the controversy over slavery heated up, many denominations split into northern abolitionist sub-denominations, and southern pro-slave sub-denominations. The division was based on contemporary social reality and evolving philosophical leaning. They did not count them as 3/5 human SO they could enslave them. They didn't count them as 3/5 human at all. It was the U.S. Constitution, not a church definition. The Democratic Party insisted on counting slaves somehow, regardless of the fraction. The Whigs and lesser parties were, apparently, either not morally strong enough, or not personally concerned enough (they were an early form of Libertarian) to fight hard enough against either the 3/5 clause or slavery generally.
Btw, I have never read that any denomination had voted to declare blacks (slaves) to be non-human (3/5 human), or that they had even voted to declare them to be human. This is a very significant factor, if true. However, at first glance it sounds like an urban legend. If you have citations for this, I hope you will share them.
=
The existence and behavior of modern churches would seem to be irrelevant in regards to whether Jesus existed or not. People in all religions, and with no religion at all, commit crimes and atrocities. Churches have no monopoly on that. Nor do they have a monopoly on hypocrisy or arrogance. Those vices are part of the common human condition; we've all got 'em. The one monopoly that religion or churches and their advocates may have today is that they are a favorite target of calumny and organized hatred.
- Forumgitator
December 18, 2008 9:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Moneychangers
Did or did not Jesus die because he went after the moneychangers tables in the Temple where the priests got 10% of everyone's money for blessing the other 90%? So no matter what happened afterward, Jesus was killed because he didn't think anyone should make money off of god especially off the poor.
Nor did I say those whom came afterward early did though Paul/Saul did introduce it back into the early church.
However in about 300AD 'Christians' when they codified the NT certainly starting taking tithing from the flocks against what the only real thing we know about Jesus, why he was killed. And now almost all pastors, preachers, ect leach off the flocks. So now all the Christian churches are run by moneychangers what Jesus killed for to stop. Yet they call themselves Christians!! g
Of course if you want to con people out of money, 'Christian's' are a good starting group as you know they'll believe anything to belong to a group, even old wives tales like the Bible.
As for the Southern Baptist not believing blacks were fully human, it was Jimmy Carter's sect that he quit over it about 10 yrs ago. And then it was barely a majority for them being fully human!!. I live in the South and such bull is still believed as fact among too many.
Religion, Race is only around so people can be a member of a group and rallied to attack others, power, money for the few leaders. All 'race' is is the adaptation of the skin to tropical climates to keep them from getting v. D poisoning from too much sun or other local adaptation. And the very white which I am from northern climates are so the skin makes enough D. Notice all around the world people living near the equator have dark skin even though different 'Races'.
A joke, What's wrong with baptist is they don't hold them underwater long enough ;^D
- jerryd
December 19, 2008 12:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The idea of Jesus
The issue of whether Jesus was real or not is in the largest sense almost irrelevant. Clearly the very idea of Jesus, and what he represents, has shaped history in a way no other person (real or imagined) can compare with.
- Langston Burroughs
December 17, 2008 8:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks to Frank for his Postings
Frank,
What a clear and convincing bit of writing you have put together for this ‘debate’. My hat’s off to you. I agree with your argument, that Jesus was not significant, historically.
- Ivar
December 17, 2008 9:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Have to disagree
There are non biblical writings that describe his existence as well. While it can’t be proven one way or the other I can’t believe that so much would be written if he was made up. Logic tells me he existed. What I don’t understand is why people like yourself have created a virtual Religion out of Atheism which is based as much on unprovable Faith as any Religion. Let people believe what they want. I actually believe that religion serves a useful purpose in that it keeps many people in line from an otherwise immoral path. You are no different in pushing your beliefs than any believer.
- tbcass
December 17, 2008 9:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well said!
I agree there are a wide variety of non-biblical sources to verify his existence, but this next paragraph I agree with even more:
"What I don’t understand is why people like yourself have created a virtual Religion out of Atheism which is based as much on unprovable Faith as any Religion. Let people believe what they want. I actually believe that religion serves a useful purpose in that it keeps many people in line from an otherwise immoral path. You are no different in pushing your beliefs than any believer."
No kidding! It's amazing that less than 1% of the population (1% of Americans being atheist according to this survey: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm ) spends so much time flooding the internet with notions about how "rational" they are to whine about something they supposedly don't care about.
I'd call them cyber-mormons for those reasons but that comparison would be an insult.......to the Mormons.
- F2XL
December 23, 2008 3:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agreed
These "super atheists" must have severe emotional problems. It all started with that wacko Madeline Murray O'Hair. Since atheism is a non belief then any normal atheist just wouldn't care about others beliefs. They would rather just be left alone.
- tbcass
December 24, 2008 5:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
what's worse is the athiestslack of honesty..
.. which is the heart of the matter. They don't even use logic, they bludgeon their ego in an unscientific way. IT's really core to them, that honesty is irrelevant. Love and knowledge being superficial, they see no harm in empty arguments so long as weak minded chortle and coo along with their empty expressions.
- jxzac April 1, 2009 8:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bible can serve as historical evidence
The problem with assuming that the bible cannot serve as historical evidence because it is religious in nature is that you have to assume the same with all other historical books that are religious in nature. It would be like saying that Hammurabi (the sixth king of Babylon) never existed because people thought that he was sent by the gods to deliver law to his people. Then you would have to refute the Code of Hammurabi as a source of evidence for his existence because obviously his followers thought he was one of the gods. While there are those who date the gospels more than 100 years after Jesus’, still many non-Christian scholars grant that some of the epistles of Paul were written not later than 40 years after Jesus’ death, which is not drastic at all considering the man was supposed to have spent most of his later years imprisoned. You also have to concede that around 70 A.D. the Romans were going around to places in Israel and to Jerusalem and burning whole cities to the ground. I don’t imagine they would have treated historical documents of the cities they were ransacking too kindly.
- Livvy
December 17, 2008 9:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Kind of depends on what you mean by "Historical Figure"
I have close to zero doubt that someone named "Jesus" was alive and well 2,000 or so years ago, but to the extent of what he did, I cannot say for sure. Thus, I think I could best describe my religious views as "agnosto-protestant."
- F2XL
December 17, 2008 10:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think it very likely there was a real Jesus
I realize that there is almost no evidence (and certainly no indisputable evidence) for his existence outside of the Bible itself. However, I do think it likely that there was a Jewish prophet named Jesus in the Jerusalem area in the neighborhood of a hundred or so years to one side or the other of 1 C.E. I think his message was likely a great deal different from that which was eventually distilled, over the course of the next 300 or so years, into what we know as the New Testament.
- Babaroni
December 19, 2008 10:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Indeed - Jesus did live
The religion that bears his name, however, bears no relationship to his purported beliefs.
Christianity, in all its manifestations are primarily the directives of Paul, who was building the religion to resemble the Roman Guard.
Paul infiltrated this cult after the death of Jesus by pretending to have had a visitation from Jesus' Ghost.
This appearance as a ghost, Jesus acquired from his father, (according to his mother)
- NOtopets
January 4, 2009 6:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Go ahead. dont believe
Is there really any downfall to believing in jesus? If he for a fact is not real then youll end up goin the same place everyone else does. If hes real and you believed in him, congratulations youre goin to heaven. If hes real and you dont.... enjoy eternal damnation
- mattbertrams
January 12, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I will thank you very much
The downfall is that if it turns out the Christian religion is a hoax (which it is), you've wasted your life living by the stupid rules of the Holey Babble.
If it's not, well, I'd rather suffer eternal damnation than live with the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully you call "God."
- bagpiper2005
February 4, 2009 1:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
the selfish and greedy don't like the idea..
the dishonest and selfish people do not like the idea that people who are honest and giving are viewed as better, after all we're talkign about selifsh dishonest people. That's what they do. They defy logic. IT's a very powerful religious movement today being sponsored by the rich. IT's an old religion . Baal, Ishtar. Baal Astheroth. THese athiests or spiritualists, are the most religious of religions. Lies upon lies. Not a substance of truth in them. You don't build a house by throwing mud in the air, but these people do.
- jxzac April 1, 2009 9:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My Jewish Perspective
I am a person who went through my searching. I have also been subjected to some very venal and intense proselytizing by Christians (to no avail - I will never convert). Here is my perspective:
1. An all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, Supreme Being has positive, absolutely no need for an assistant or son. Jesus was a man, conceived by a man and a woman.
2. A true Messiah will get it right the first time. There is no need for second chances.
3. I don't need anyone to take responsibility for my sins. I'll take responsibility for those, thank you.
4. I don't go around trying to sell my religion as a part of my ticket to the afterlife.
5. Jesus provided many examples in his life. For me, the most positive one was the FACT that he was born a Jew and died a Jew. I'll follow that one.
- Rashi18
April 4, 2009 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Of course
Of course Jesus was a real man and a historical figure. Whether he was the Messiah or not is the real question that should be asked.
- mjays
January 30, 2009 11:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, But....
....definitely not who he said he was. I think he was either mentally ill or just enjoyed the attention he got from claiming to be the son of the divine. I think he was a liar, an idiot, or both perhaps, but I definitely believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.
Also, this whole "Virgin Birth" thing has got to go. Although it is possible given the right circumstances (even in mammals, which include the human race), "parthenogenesis" as it is called would only produce female offspring, and as such there is no confirmed case of human parthenogenesis.
- bagpiper2005
February 4, 2009 12:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jesus most likely was real, but his acts weren't
Jesus most probably was just a myth, which has been blown out of proportion and made false tales into "truth".
Most of the gospels written about Jesus were written much later after he "died". One of the gospels, the gospel of Mark, mentions the destruction of the temple, which came about in the year 70 CE. Jesus is supposed to have died around the year 30 CE. There is at least a 40 year gap in the writing of the gospels and the life of Jesus. A 40 year memory gap might not neccessarily hold up as a valid interpretation of an actual event that happened, if such an event took place. Also, there are passages in scripture that make statements saying that Jesus was not a real person. In Hebrews 8:4, it says: "If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest." The church ITSELF discounts the idea that Jesus was an actual human being.
I'm not sure what that tells you, but I'm pretty sure it means something.
- chuckly74
April 6, 2009 10:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lost in translation or fabricated?
While there may have been a real man that "Jesus" was based upon, the myth would be unrecognizable to the people who actually knew the real man. It is similar to the real person of Saint Nicholas versus "Santa Claus". Paul probably is mostly to blame for embellishing (lying) to create the character he needed for his new religion . A reading of Paul's New Testament writings shows him to be a bitter, perverted little man.
- KentMcManigal May 28, 2009 11:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
real deal
The teachings of Christ are the most inspirational, pacifistic, quotable words ever said.
Organized religion destroys everything?... really? Any harm that is cited as the result of Christianity is the result of a lack of following the teachings. People have killed in the name of everything.. and often in the name of nothing at all.
What type of smear campaign must you people run to suggest that a man who taught us to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek, and died at OUR hands is somehow an instigator of violence.
Both Christians and Atheists alike are sinful beings.. so many people go on some sort of strange delusion that once a person becomes a Christian this immediately changes...
All of the people who are so angry at religion need to seriously ask themselves.. where does this anger come from? They launch into vicious assaults and make insulting remarks or blasphemous images... for what reason? They devote tremendous amounts of time arguing against what they don't believe in!... such a strange habit to pursue. I believe I know what's at the root of it... how do I know? I was an atheist. I spent my days arguing against it to see if I could acquire enough reason TO believe it. There's one problem with such a path.. words won't prove it. Belief comes from personal experience.
Yes Jesus was real... that has been documented by witnesses who both believed in him and also secular sources.
Those who don't believe are often the types who fear that they will look foolish believing something that they feel isn't true...
Isn't it ironic then.. that the most foolish I ever looked was when God found me....talk about embarrassed.
- lux113
July 16, 2009 6:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Historical Figure?
Maybe, there verry well could have been a Jew named Jesus who walked around preaching his own version of his book of worship and claiming he was the son of god . I like the idea of Jesus and God. Do I beleve in them or their magical powers? No, no more than that Santa's real or that the guy/gal who game me presents had magical powers.
I have a queston for you all though.
If someone walked up to you and told you that they were the son of say Zeus and that you should worship him and build him a house and place to worship him what would you do? Be honest.
- ttut21
August 10, 2009 3:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Historical figure.
In judging whether Jesus was a historic figure you first have to separate Jesus from Christian theology. Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. I don't believe in magic. What appears to be magic is simply a lack of the understanding of natural laws. I believe the Bible. The only thing I can't figure out in the account of Jesus is how he walked on water .
- mike1948
August 10, 2009 10:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Historical figure. 2
Blind can see in the literal sense... Magic right?
He never claimed to be the son of god ? Really... Dosen't sound right at all.
- ttut21
August 12, 2009 3:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Never say never.
Ok, any time I say never it gets me in trouble. It is hinted at a couple of times in John, but the point is Jesus was not going around saying, "I am the Son of God, so follow me"
- mike1948
August 12, 2009 11:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.