There is a big problem. They got the wrong bones.
Peter died c 55 CE according to the Chronograph of 354
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chronography_of_354_13_bishops_of_rome.htm
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
There is a big problem. They got the wrong bones.
Peter died c 55 CE according to the Chronograph of 354
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chronography_of_354_13_bishops_of_rome.htm
Now you are relying on Tertullian?
I'm confused because of what you said here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9648707#post9648707
Which is it?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Now you are relying on Tertullian?
I'm confused because of what you said here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9648707#post9648707
Which is it?
Oh, it's easy: if it supports my view, we can and should use it. Otherwise, it's BS and anyone using it has no credibility.
I've already said i misspoke about him being first century. There is no doubt as to when he lived. Since I've corrected that why do you continue to say I said he was first century. It's obvious I DON"T think he is a first century author. I haven't even bothered to go back and read what I wrote as we addressed it. Are you continuing to bring that up to attack my credibility?
Yes, I'm saying that Maimonides knew the oral tradition as well as anyone. And that includes the story of Jesus of Nazareth. The oral tradition is faithfully reproduced as is the text of the Torah and other works. I'm not aware of a mainstream Judaic controversy Jesus never existed or is myth although there certainly is myth surrounding the beliefs of the Christians along with anathema and blasphemy. There is no greater blasphemy than declaring yourself God on earth or 'I AM'.
Again, you show a lack of knowledge of apologetic writings and the history of the Jews.
Justin Martyr admitted that the Jews argued that Jesus the Christ had NOT yet come up or if he came no-one knew him up to c 150 CE.
Justin's Dialogue with Trypho CX
Tertullian also claimed the Jews argued that the Christ had not come up to the 3rd century.
Tertullian's Answer to the Jews
Please get familiar with the writings of antiquity.
The argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth is hopelessly flawed which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?
Could have? How about have said?
There is even the idea that Jesus was a Buddhist out there. Also there really are people who say Jesus was a spaceman
boggledCould have? How about have said?
There is even the idea that Jesus was a Buddhist out there. Also there really are people who say Jesus was a spaceman
OK, sorry.
I was not aware of Spaceman Jesus.
Crikey!
First you are assuming that the Gospels story is historical...no evidence that is is.
More over lets actually look at Pliny's letter and see what he really says:
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and tsing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
------
Sorry for that but I felt it was vital to see the letter as it actually appears. There is NOTHING in it that says this Christ was a person. All it does shows that these Christians worshiped this Christ as a god.
Yes I do see the Bible as being historical among other things dismissing the religious aspect of it.
I took the liberty of addressing other parts of the letter which you didn't highlight. He did execute Christians, those that did not recant worshipping a God, who was not Emperor therefore undermining the authority of Rome. Those people refused to recant knowing they would be executed. Others chose to recant. Maybe I would, too. Obviously some believed strongly they were correct in their beliefs. That might be from blind obedience to a fraudulent claim.
Or that may have been those who knew those well enough that did claim to have seen a resurrected Jesus that they believed. Many people would have to have good reason to believe before doing so. Some might have to know to a reasonable degree of certainty to go to their deaths. I personally cannot dismiss the idea that people then would be like those now. The best way to understand Pliny's letter is to reason he knew someone had been crucified and these Christians were under some illusion that he had been resurrected among other 'depraved excessive superstitions' they believed and/or practiced (like the partaking of his flesh). You assume this person could be anyone when most people are going to reasonably assume it was 'this Jesus of Nazareth'.
You seem comfortable in dismissing the entire picture by looking at a small piece of the puzzle. I've said before if you look at each small datum you can find a way(s) to dismiss it. But when you look at all the evidence then it strains credibility to dismiss then all. It requires too many but ifs. The factorial is just too great to ignore.
I knew it. You believe the Bible.
You also have no idea that Jesus of the Bible is a Jesus of Faith.
If you dismiss the religious aspect of Jesus then you eliminate him from the Bible.
Good thing no one is looking for the HJ in the bible then. The bible tells you where to start looking for the HJ.
You still don't understand this?
Belz...
Fiend God
I knew it. You believe in strawmen and well poisoning !
Where did the “historical Jesus” come from? Is that not obtained from the bible by erasing all the supernatural elements?
Or is it being claimed that people arrived at the idea of a “historical Jesus” without ever being aware that anyone had ever written a bible talking about anyone called Jesus?
Is someone claiming that this “historical” Jesus was not derived from what was written in the bible?
Or is it being claimed that people arrived at the idea of a “historical Jesus” without ever being aware that anyone had ever written a bible talking about anyone called Jesus?
Is someone claiming that this “historical” Jesus was not derived from what was written in the bible?
No. Only the way historians go about researching a question like that doesn't involve getting a bible and just crossing out the miraculous bits.
That's like assuming economists just toss a coin to decide on investments or something. It betrays a lack of knowledge. Keep it up.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
You saying that economists have a foolproof way to tell which investments will increase in value like historians know what in the bible is true?
You have just entered into the murky world of historical myth.
Robin Hood and King Arthur are thought to be historical myths but their stories don't really tell us about the actually men that inspired those myths. There is just enough to show that there seems to be an actual person at the core but that is about it.
The problem is with Mark clocking in c70 CE odds are anyone who had personally been able to see the events of 28-36 CE was either dead and gone or their memory had been colored by succeeding events.
This assumes that there wasn't some sort of timeshifting ala Robin Hood to put Jesus in the 28-36 CE time period. There is nothing in the writings generally agreed to be Paul's to put Jesus as a recent personage.
It struck me that this repetition of 'crossing out' and 'erasing' miraculous bits, is quite a clever and covert way of denying historical method - apologies for referring to the other thread. Since historical method doesn't cross out or erase, it's a kind of misrepresentation or even denial, but not an obvious one.
- Status