Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Mister Earl]

Posted by DOC
Actually the number of posts I have made (over 2000) is something for people to think about. Could a Scientologist legitimately defend their religion against 250 skeptics in a 351 page thread with 14,000 posts in it.

I'm not sure you've successfully defended anything. You created a thread purporting to have proof, then had to endure 14,000 posts of people pointing out that you still haven't presented proof of anything.

How about a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or Jew. I know of no one in these religions that has defended their religion against hundreds of skeptics with cold facts for 20 pages much less 351.

You haven't, either. You have still not presented any evidence acceptable to anyone but another blind believer.

Whether you agree with me or not, one has to seriously consider the fact that I have so much information to support my claims.

You have plenty of blind assumptions. Proof? No.

Where are the followers of other religions supporting their beliefs with cold historical data against hundreds of skeptics as I have done? People who ask me why is your religion any different then all the rest, really have to think about that. And the members of other religions should think about that also...

Nah. Your religion is no better, nor worse than any other out there, and there's the same exact amount of "proof" that they are real.

None.

Allow me to slightly elaborate: Let's say I build a room. It's a secure concrete room with one lockable door. In this room, I place only a small table. I lock the door. Then, I tell a billion people that there is an apple on the table in that room. Let's say they believe me by default. Now, if I were to return to that room, unlock and open the door, would I now find an apple on it? No. What's the point of this story?

Reality itself is independent of our beliefs, desires, and hopes.

 

[Paulhoff]

So the evidence that cj has put forth you are just ignoring out of hand?


That is very true. No one involved in this discussion has said that it does. Nazareth's existential state has no bearing on a deity's existential state. It can, however, serve as a starting point where a theist and an atheist can come to common ground as far as what is real and what is fiction in the gospels.

If you're going to take the position that since god is fictional, therefore all that's written in the bible is fictional, I don't see where you're going to get much out of this discussion. If you have evidence that what cj has presented is bogus, please present it. As of yet, you've brought in a single video clip. This is supposed to be a discussion, not just gainsay.

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/book.html

http://www.atheists.org/wiki/images/c/cf/Myth_of_Nazareth_article_ed.pdf

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Paul

 

[cj.23]

That is very true. No one involved in this discussion has said that it does. Nazareth's existential state has no bearing on a deity's existential state. It can, however, serve as a starting point where a theist and an atheist can come to common ground as far as what is real and what is fiction in the gospels.

Thanks Kmortis. In fact, my confusion with the arguments against a historical Jesus can be summarised as follows...

1. It is not in anyway unlikely that a preacher named Yeshua bar Yusef or similar existed in the period given. We know holy men of various types existed, and preached eschatological messages, from Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

2. I have no doubt of the existence of Muhammed (pbuh), L Ron Hubbard, or Joseph Smith. I am not as it happens a follower of Islam, Scientology or any of the Mormon faiths,but I accepted these were real living human beings. The bare fact of the exstence of a human Jesus tells us nothing about any supernatural claims validity.

3. That the followers of said Jesus believed he worked supernatural miracles is again "meh" at best. We find similar supernatural elements in the stories of Alexander the Great, Joseph Smith, Daniel Dunglas Hume and Madame Blavatsky, Uri Geller or the Scole Group mediums who are all alive and well today. That they existed seems beyond doubt: the presence of supernatural elements is by no means a reason to rejetc the existence of the protagonist...


Logically I see little reason why a Christian and an atheist should not agree upon these facts, and settle down to th complex business of trying to establish were the histroical relaibility of the gospels can be accepted, and where we enter the realms of faith and the supernatural, or later pious fictions. The quest for th historicl Jesus can be undertaken by anyone, regardles sof faith position - though Christians are at a diusavantage through the possibility of confirmation bias, which a believer like me must constantly guard against.

The best way to avoid that is ot become well acquainted with our sources, in particular the archaeological and secular ones, and the history and culture of the Ancient Near East.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Jesus - There was certainly a man named Joshua at the time. It's a common Jewish name. There was certainly at least one that was a preacher of sorts. Whether or not he was the same as the one named in the gospels there is some debate. That he had any supernatural nature there is great debate.

There would have been around 202,500 historical Jesus' in first century Judea and Galilee. I base this on a Jewish population estimate of four and a half million,and Professor Rachel Hallili's note that it was the sixth most popular male name, representing 9% of the male population. So you do the math and there you have it -- at any given time 202,500 Jesus living in the area in the right time. In 2005 William was the 6th most common US name, but Andrew held that position in 2006. Shows you roughly how common the name Jesus was... Hope of interest.

cj x

 

[kmortis]

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/book.html

http://www.atheists.org/wiki/images/c/cf/Myth_of_Nazareth_article_ed.pdf

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Paul

The first two links are essentially the same, and related to the video you posted earlier. They relate the information from Rene Salm that Tim O Neill refuted elsewhere.

The final link is interesting and I'd like to read it over. Like I've said before, I have no real issue with there having been a Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua because of the commonality of the name. I'm not convinced that he was in any way devine (partially because of my self-proclaimed bias against there being a devine being). The article is interesting to me because it comes from a Jewish perspective. Granted, it's modern Judiasm, but still it's a culture that I am ignorant of and need some time to digest.

Now, Paul, do you have a problem with there being a person named Jesus (or a variant of that name), who lived at the time of the gospels' setting (~6 BCE - 30 CE)? If not, do you have a problem with him being an iterant preacher? A rabble rouser?

The first premise is so common place that to dismiss it out of hand would be illogical. The second two take a bit of presupposition, and therefore could more easily be dismissed.

 

[kmortis]

There would have been around 202,500 historical Jesus' in first century Judea and Galilee. I base this on a Jewish population estimate of four and a half million,and Professor Rachel Hallili's note that it was the sixth most popular male name, representing 9% of the male population. So you do the math and there you have it -- at any given time 202,500 Jesus living in the area in the right time. In 2005 William was the 6th most common US name, but Andrew held that position in 2006. Shows you roughly how common the name Jesus was... Hope of interest.

cj x

And while we probably don't have demographic stats to determine who many people at the time were preachers of one sort or another, rabble rousers were not uncommon. The reason for Sepphoris was to help keep order in the region. Let's face it, subjected people generally don't like to be subjected people and a certain population will take steps to try to bring the rule of the others to an end.

 

[Paulhoff]

Now, Paul, do you have a problem with there being a person named Jesus (or a variant of that name), who lived at the time of the gospels' setting (~6 BCE - 30 CE)? If not, do you have a problem with him being an iterant preacher? A rabble rouser?

There were many rabble rousers of that time, and having a person named Jesus is no big deal. But having him the son of a god, now that is a problem, and him being the so-called messiah is another big problem seeing that he doesn't fit the bill of the OT.

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

Paul

 

[kmortis]

There were many rabble rousers of that time, and having a person named Jesus is no big deal. But having him the son of a god, now that is a problem, and him being the so-called messiah is another big problem seeing that he doesn't fit the bill of the OT.

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

Paul

So, we're in agreement then.

Actually, I think it would be interesting to go through and find out what the Messianic prophsies were, which ones the biblical Jesus fullfilled and which were a stretch. But that's a different thread.

Oh, one other question, do you really have an issue with there being a Nazareth, or are you just being a contrarian?

 

[cj.23]

I'll discuss Hayyim ben Yehoshua's arguments if you want Paul. I am familiar with them, but the problem is they rely on agreeing the Jesus of the gospels is the Yeshu of the Talmud. Tat may or my not be the case -- but it is certainly more interesting than refuting Renee Salm's Nazareth ideas again. This should get any interested party up to speed very quickly --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

cj x

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Finally, this thread is becoming educational.

It would seem that Salm's conjectures regarding the (non)existence of Nazareth have been clearly refuted. As to why James Randi continues to tout Salm's dubious claims, one can only surmise. But it is not uncommon for folks with an agenda on either side to fall into Woo in order to support the insupportable. And I have oft found that some people who call themselves skeptics tend to lose all semblance of skepticism when Empirical Evidence challenges their own beliefs--as in touting their own unsupported "Conspiracy Theories" in opposition to testable claims.

As CJ23 and Kmortis point out, whether or not the historicity of Nazareth or the personage of a Jewish "carpenter" pan out, none of this in any way proves the Exclusive Divinity of said personage.

To date, the existence of any Deity(s), either parochial or universal, is neither provable nor disprovable Empirically. Thus any claims to the contrary on either side are mere hypotheses without any empirical evidence to support them.

This tends to put the kibosh on the claims made in this thread's title.

GB

 

[paximperium]

I doubt many here would agree that Yeshu of the Talmud is the same as the Yeshua of the bible. Even for the sake of argument, we do consider it the same character...it was written centuries after the original character existed which would mean these stories are hearsay.

 

[cj.23]

I doubt many here would agree that Yeshu of the Talmud is the same as the Yeshua of the bible. Even for the sake of argument, we do consider it the same character...it was written centuries after the original character existed which would mean these stories are hearsay.

Yep - which is the basic problem with Paul's third link. It's interesting, but hardly useful. There are other problems as well, such as the discussion of notzri and nazarenes and the claims that early Christians did not know what the term meant, but it would require more time to explain than I have tonight. I'll have a go later is anyone really is interested. I must get back to synagogue though...

cj x

 

[Lucian]

Actually I think it does something else. Ever read any Sherlock Holmes stories? Watson, often the narrator as I recall, is depicted as a bumbling fool -- well not really that's more Rathbone and thingies portrayal, but certainly not as that sharp. I think this portrayal of the disciples as plain dumb is in fact just a literary device: it need not be factual. People forget the authors were telling a story, and use literary conventions.

cj x

Nigel Bruce

As for the literary device of the "dopey disciple," it seems to me that when they say, essentially, "Uh, I don't get it," they are acting as stand-ins for the reader, and allow Jesus to expand on/clarify his point.

 

[Paulhoff]

So, we're in agreement then.

Actually, I think it would be interesting to go through and find out what the Messianic prophsies were, which ones the biblical Jesus fullfilled and which were a stretch. But that's a different thread.

Oh, one other question, do you really have an issue with there being a Nazareth, or are you just being a contrarian?

Where would a Nazareth change the main theme, someone being a son of a deity.

Paul

 

[Lucian]

Not really, there are a large number of interpretation of the Bible, ranging from 'the pure, perfect and inalterable word of God' all the way to 'a collection of stories' (there even are some people that think that the new testament was entirely made up as an hoax).

Among this rainbow of views, a number can be accepted by mainstream Christians. Indeed, literalists actually are in the minority. Most people consider that the Bible was written by a large number of, mostly unknown, authors (and later mis-attributed to more famous names). Some Christians considered that God did inspire the writings to an extent, at least, "proof-read" the texts or inspired their inclusion/exclusion in the canons, but some Christians hapilly considered it a collection of faillible accounts of the Godly events.
While I don't want to put words in his mouth, it would seem that CJ.23 is closer to this later position...

Oh, I do so love the idea of God sitting in his celestial study with a cup of coffee and a blue pencil, copy-editing the Bible--muttering about organization and repetition and occasionally sending an angel down to demand a complete re-write: "Michael, take this 'Revelation' thing back to John and tell him to revise it when he hasn't been licking toads. I can't understand a word of it, and I'm omniscient!"

 

[cj.23]

Nigel Bruce

As for the literary device of the "dopey disciple," it seems to me that when they say, essentially, "Uh, I don't get it," they are acting as stand-ins for the reader, and allow Jesus to expand on/clarify his point.

Yes: to be fair i was distracted by Gatiss' enthusiasm for his modern Sherlock and forgot Nigel Bruce - he and Rathbone were the definitive Holmes & Watson ot me. Mark Gatiss is a bloody nice bloke though, and from my conversation with him a pretty hard sceptic. Good man

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Oh, I do so love the idea of God sitting in his celestial study with a cup of coffee and a blue pencil, copy-editing the Bible--muttering about organization and repetition and occasionally sending an angel down to demand a complete re-write: "Michael, take this 'Revelation' thing back to John and tell him to revise it when he hasn't been licking toads. I can't understand a word of it, and I'm omniscient!"

Nominated.

cj x

 

[Toke]

archæological and other evidence that I've been reading.

Where did you get an æ from?

 

[cj.23]

Right, I have been uncharacteristically quiet while I plough through the literature on Second Temple era synagogues. They were common in the diaspora, and a few examples of pre-70CE ones are known in Palestine, but they were uncommon as specialist buildings. Two things come to light - they served as a place for Sabbath readings, and they also acted as places where hospitality was offered to travellers. The latter I found particularly interesting: it could be the Jesus movement actually stayed in synagogues as they moved around the countryside.

However the crucial point seems to be that a synagogue may have just been a private house - some were it seem privately built - as we see here

1 Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.

This seems to be confirmed by the Theodotus inscription - anyone could set up a synagogue, even a Roman. SO the term may simply be for "the place where the Sabbath readings were held", and used by the possibly diaspora authors to indicte that practice.

However synangogues were not actually anachronistic as i had thought possible - they have existed for three centuries by tthe time in question. Their role may have only been of importance ot one of the many setarian groups, or varied by local custom however. They were NOT associated with teh Pharisees however as one often sees suggested.

So yeah, Nazareth may well have had a synagogue - just not hta we imagine as such. Hope of interest

cj x


cj x

 

[secrets]

All of you have raised very valid points, which is great.
But in my opinion, the Bible should not be taken too literally. I'm not here to disprove the text, only to say that it should often be seen as a series of symbolic stories instead.