historical proof that jesus existed

Maybe I am utterly missing something Kitty-Chan but I am uncertain where your post was suppose to go. A couple of things stick out, however.

Actually there is quite a bit about Jews and Christians in the Koran.
Click to expand...

Not surprising since the Koran was based on and competing with these religions.

Once again, what the Bible says about Islam is another question, . . .
Click to expand...

The Bible does not say anything about Islam--it did not exist when the texts were written. It also does not say anything about Dianetics.

Mohammod was a person, Christ was a person. Just like Alexander the Great was a person.
Click to expand...

No. Actually there is a great deal of controversy regarding the details of the historical Mohammed. Junior has no realiable attestation outside of the biblical texts--Josephus & Tacitus are late, and highly controversial, to write the least. Most significant, even if legitimate, you are left with a "so what?" in that neither gives any useful information on what Junior said or did.

I am lost regarding your next section. Incidentally, a Hindu commentator states that Hinduism is monotheistic--all are avatars/aspects of one deity. Take that with an appropriate shovel of salt since I do not know.

As for Christ thats where its a little different. Christ was a person that did live long ago and if it was left at that I suspect there would not be much conversation over the years.
Click to expand...

That is the subject of debate.

But then He also said He is God.
Click to expand...

Actually he does not. This has caused some scholars to wonder if the historical Junior ever made such a claim--particularly since the Jerusalem group appears secular and the Synoptics and Jn castigate the disciples for never figuring out he was divine. The authors feel he was a "son of a god" which is a conception that differs depending on the writer.

The Synoptic Junior does make a wonderful pun--"ego eimi"--I am what I am," essentially.

Where Alexander the Great was a person and Shiva is a god, Christ said "I Am" Which separated Him from Shiva and Alexander. Being both a man and God. Thus all the conversation.
Click to expand...

So . . . Reverend Moon is a god? He says he is. Hence, I am not sure I understand your point.

Right . . . now on to the library. . . .

--J.D.
 
The Good Doctor's Syllabus:

Right, I link to Amazon simply to make finding the books easier. Check the library or used books for bargains. I have tried to avoid the controversial and arcane stuff for the New Testament--and state where some areas need more work. As I composed this books and books came to mind . . . well, I limited it. I do not want to waste pages of bandwidth.

Texts:

Ideally, you want to read the NT in the "original" Greek. Sure . . . the thing to understand is that the English translations follow tradition rather than the language. I have two favorite examples of this which I will bore youse guys with later if you want.

Fine . . . not a Greek scholar?

Revised Standard Version is a basic text. Scholars use it because it is available BUT translate passages themselves when necessary. Hold that thought a mite.

BlueLetterBible is a good "on-line" Bible in that you can switch from different translations, check the Greek and other languages as you need it.

KJV is a good doorstop as far as scholarship goes. Sorry, better witnesses and better translators came after it. However, one should not diminish its historical value--you wanna know what T.S. Elliot is pissing on about? Go ye to KJV. Sometimes it preserves a closer translation. So there. Just be willing to switch around and accept some uncertainty.

Gospel Parallels, Throckmorton:

Get this book. NOW!! In fact I will wait.

Right, the earlier editions are CHEAP--under $10. Why the big deal?

How did Mt rewrite Mk? Who is Q?

This takes the NRSV [New Revised Standard Version--Ed.] of the Synoptics--Mt, Mk, Lk--and puts them side-by-side. NOW you can see things scholars write about. This is a MUST!

No big deal if you go for earlier editions.

The intro is a bit "biased" in the he would like you to believe the text of the NT in "nearly certain." Bullcrap, but it has an introduction to textual criticism.

Textual Criticism:

Where is Mk? It is a scroll somewhere? Signed limited edition? Sorry, the texts are put together from a slew of witnesses of various ages. Throckmorton gives some introduction to that.

Now, textual criticism matters because "what" is in the text determines what it means of course. However, for most this is FAR beyond what you need. So, I will not pontificate further. IF youse guys want it, I will give some great introductions, and you can all argue about "Western Texts" and homoeoteleuton. [Stop that.--Ed.]

Just know that "certain" is not certain.

NT 101:

Start with the works of Burton Mack. Here is a good one:

Who Wrote the New Testament?

This is a good beginning introduction to the issues of early movements and the social structures that lead to Christian myth--sorry, resurrection is a myth . . . even the Jesus Seminar had to accept that! Dead flesh is DEAD FLESH! [Stop it!--Ed.]

It also gives an introduction to the texts.

This one is a more "classic" two volume introduction--make sure you get both:

Introduction to the New Testament by Koester. This is for you, JAR because Koester is more "conservative." I laugh at it because it is PONDEROUS sometimes, but it is complete.

What about the "historical Junior" . . . Koester simply dismisses the question and states scholars should not "ask such questions." What?

Well . . . scholars are nervous about them so approaching the HJ is a problem. ALL think about what their research says--unfortunately it is often contradictory. So the details have to be gleaned from the works piecemeal. However,

New Testament Background is a good introduction to texts that may have been the basis for some NT texts--this includes a discussion of the controversies with Josephus and Tacitus--and Eusebius . . . and. . . . It is "dated" a bit and "conservative" but it is a good start I still use. Heck, for $4 it is more than worth it.

Myth? History:

I have not read this yet, but it has been recommended:

The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy by Mack.

I will recommend the works of this man, Gerd Ludemann. He is/was a religioius NT professor in Germany who lost his chair because he lost his faith in the biblical stories--to make a complicated story short. This does not mean he is an atheist. However, his struggle with the issues touches on historicity. I recommend this book: The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible for discussions on the OT practice of herem or sacrifice of people to your god, but he discusses the NT as well. Under $3 people! Ignore the "girly-men" who wrote the Amazon reviews--Collins cites the book in his SBL presidential address.

I have not read his:

Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figement?

but I will. As youse can see from the review both sides support it and denigrate it! If anyone here has read it, let me know what you thought.

Okay . . . I have saved this for last. . . .

Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle

Sorry, I have not read it yet. Why do I mention it then? Why am I writing like Hemingway. Who fought all night with fish. Which was big. In the rain?

It is the one that causes skeptics and "mythicists" to go nuts on boards. I wish some scholars would address him--Ivory Tower 'n all that. I, myself, looked at his treatment of the Galatians evidence I mentioned above and . . . well . . . I am not convinced. Do a search and you will find his web-page and find all sorts of debates. He is an extreme mythicist.

Okay, seems long enough . . . I have more references for more specific issues. Let me stop there.

Notice I have not mentioned Crossan, or some other recent religious scholars. Why? Not enough time. Here I will confess a bias I will correct. Crossan seemed, in interviews, a bit of an apologist--a priest trying to find his Jesus. On a limited budget and every book 300 pages . . . one has to make choices.

However, Crossan is NO FOOL as anyone reading the literature will stumble over his references.

Then one day . . . whilst I flipped on the television . . . I saw him on either Fox or MSNBC which is Fox or at least tries to be it and the topic was the Gospel According to Mel. "Great!" I thought.

He REAMED the film:

O'Riley/Scarborough/SomeConservativeFanatic: "You consider it 'inaccurate.'"

Crossan: "Irresponsibly inaccurate. Dangerously inaccurate!"

So . . . I will have to spring some $$$ and check him out. . . .

--J.D.
 
Kitty Chan,
I think you are making the situation out to be simpler than it is.

You say that Christ existed as if it was an absolute fact without explaining what you mean. What part of the Christ stories in the bible does your statement imply are true?

If all that is required for your statement to be true is that a person by the name of the aramaic equivalent of Jesus existed around 1 AD your statement hasn't made much of a prediction. There were lots of people named Jesus about that time, many of whom some documentation exists of their life.

If you mean that a person named Jesus existed that was:
* born in Bethlehem
* born to a woman named the aramaic equivalent of Mary
* born to a woman impregnated by God
* raised in Nazareth
* walked on water
* healed people with supernatural powers
* delivered the sermon on the mount
* led a group of 12 apostles
* had a relative (possibly brother) named James
* was sentenced to death by pontius pilate
* was crucified
* rose from the dead
* had two apostles that documented his life
* was written about by those two apostles and others

You have made a very strong prediction which appears to be largely incorrect based on the available evidence.

So what does "Christ was a person" mean to you?

The author, Paul Tobin, of this site (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html) and many other secular writers would agree that a historical Jesus probably existed, but that a great deal of the biblical documentation of his life is just fabrication. I think what the author of this site might say is that there was a historical Jesus who was:
* born about 4 bc
* named the aramaic equivalent of Jesus
* probably a Jewish priest
* founder of an alternative sect within Judaism
* the relative (probably brother) of James
* killed about 33 bc possibly by crucifixiton
* succeeded by his relative James after his death as leader of cult he founded

Paul Tobin, bases the above largely on the epistles in the new testament that he thought Paul actually wrote and a bit on the mention of James by Josephus.

But there are secular writers who argue that Jesus didn't exist at all. This is one of the sites that puts forward that view:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
 
Re: Re: historical proof that jesus existed

Originally posted by Iacchus
"There is much to be gained on holding the molopoly on truth, whether it happens to be true or not."

So true, esp. for xtianity.

"...Maybe that's not as important as having an open mind about God....."

But many would argue, given the world-wide ways gods manifest themselves, there can be no true god; it's all part of humankind.

"...we should be able to approach this God by following His words shouldn't we? Which is, afterall, the ultimate test don't you think?"

Why do you put your head in the sand over this? Your hands over your ears? That seems to be what you suggest, thus not making it a challenge at all, no? Sure sounds like blind acceptance, a willingness to accept ignorance, and refusal to accept a broader point of view......

See the many links just posted for more information, for example.
Click to expand...
 
Based on Doctor X's suggestion I found this site on "The Jesus Puzzle":
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/

I read through most of the site. The author's position is that an historical Jesus did not exist. A rough summary of the author's views is that the Gospels are not reliable and that Paul, the writer closest in time to Jesus was referring to a mystical Jesus and not a real flesh and blood Jesus. The site also offers a fairly detailed refutation of the idea that the two Josephus references to Jesus were actually written by him.

http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm

I would recommend this site:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

over the Jesus Puzzle site for somebody that is looking for a well written, concise overview of the generally accepted secular views of the new testament. Although the author of the site differs with the author of the Jesus Puzzle site on the existence of Jesus, there is considerable agreement between the sites on the origins and dating of the Gospels and their reliablity as historical documents.

The two sites differ significantly only on the question of the existence of Jesus Christ and the origins of the Christian Church.

Tobin, sees James as a genuine historical character that becomes leader of a Jewish-Christian sect that follows Mosaic law. He sees Paul as a founder of the gentile wing of that Church. Tobin further claims that the Jewish branch of Christianity was destroyed to the point that they were unable to continue as a sect by the second Roman destruction of Jerusalem about 135 AD.

Earl Doherty, (the Jesus Puzzle), sees Paul not so much as a founder of Christianity but rather as an itinerant preacher going around to already existing congregations whose foundation predated the alleged existance of Jesus Christ.

I would in particular recommend Tobin's site to JAR because it explains in a very readable way why modern secular biblical scholarship doesn't accept the traditional dating of the Gospels or the traditional authorship of the Gospels.
 
Doctor X said:
Maybe I am utterly missing something Kitty-Chan but I am uncertain where your post was suppose to go. --J.D.
Click to expand...

I just stopped in quick I will have to come back a bit later.

If it helps read my post from the view that I am attempting to respond to the Soderqvist1 essay. Think of that when you read my answers. Its kind of hard to talk to a essay that wasnt totally about the question in the first place, but I tried. So try that and it will help you.

Some of what you commented on I said I actually didnt say someone else did. Anyway hope that helps.

Also, you or another Id have to look back and times short right now, but a direct question to me was what I meant by Jesus being a person.

I mean like you, me, Soderqvist, James, Napoleon, Bach, Caesar, Nero, Cleopatra, are persons. Im simply talking existance walking around talking to people in different towns etc nothing else attatched to that. I cannot understand how anyone could have an theory He didnt actually exist. I can understand debating the things Jesus did or the statements He made fine go ahead.

However, I have to go with history having a understanding that at least He existed. If we cant believe that then how can I believe that ole Cleo existed? If one cant trust history to have at least gotten something like existance straight where does that leave us?

P.S. Someone also said Mohamood wasnt real, Im sure I read where he was born etc, I will get back to that too.
 
Kitty-Chan:

If it helps read my post from the view that I am attempting to respond to the Soderqvist1 essay. Think of that when you read my answers. Its kind of hard to talk to a essay that wasnt totally about the question in the first place, but I tried. So try that and it will help you.
Click to expand...

I read Soderqvist1's post and, unfortunately, it did not then nor does it now clarify your post.

Some of what you commented on I said I actually didnt say someone else did. Anyway hope that helps.
Click to expand...

No. I suggest in the future you indicate who wrote what--using quote functions or citations--to avoid confusion.

. . . but a direct question to me was what I meant by Jesus being a person.

[Snip!--Ed.] I cannot understand how anyone could have an theory He didnt actually exist.
Click to expand...

That does make sense. The case mythicists make which is very compelling is that all aspects of Junior can be mythic. Thus, remove the myth, what do you have? Nothing.

However, this does not prove no historical figure existed. It does suggest we know squat all about him.

If we cant believe that then how can I believe that ole Cleo existed?
Click to expand...

. . . because you have independent and contemporary documentation.

If one cant trust history to have at least gotten something like existance straight where does that leave us?
Click to expand...

Why it is all fun! Seriously! Scholars have slowly come to the conclusion that no Exodus happened. There is a big wad of "history" flushed! However, Washington never chopp'd down a cherry tree either. The study of history involves re-examination of evidence all of the time.

With ancient history, we have little evidence and must, therefore, be more stringent in our assessments.

Not to tangent too much, but if no Exodus and if the Patriarch narratives are anachronistic--and they are--"who" is real in the OT? There is a lot of controversy there! Certainly not Moses!

P.S. Someone also said Mohamood wasnt real, Im sure I read where he was born etc, I will get back to that too.
Click to expand...

You may be thinking of moi. I believe I mentioned taking such an opinion with a shovelful of salt. I have not studied Islam or Mohammed for some time. For example, scholars are just discussing variant witnesses to the Qu'ran! The "history" of Mohammed is not--to the best of my recollection--contemporary at all.

There is, to my memory, considerable controversy to "what is" and "what is not" reliable. Just as no one walked on water, Mohammed did not "fly" to Jerusalem! Fine! It is easy to delete miracles and other flim-flam.

However, other details are sketchy. I, personally, am not up on the objective scholarship.

Of course, the fact that people with rocks gets pissed when you ask these questions rather constrains research!

--J.D.
 
Kitty Chan said:
I mean like you, me, Soderqvist, James, Napoleon, Bach, Caesar, Nero, Cleopatra, are persons. Im simply talking existence walking around talking to people in different towns etc nothing else attached to that. I cannot understand how anyone could have an theory He didn’t actually exist. I can understand debating the things Jesus did or the statements He made fine go ahead.
Click to expand...

The significant difference between the historical characters that you list above and Jesus is that the characters were famous in their own time, were written about contemporaneously and held positions that uniquely identified them. None of the above is true about Jesus.

When secular scholars have eliminated the information about the life of Jesus which is obviously false and probably false they are left with a small set of facts that might be true. It is how to interpret this small set of facts about the life of Jesus that might be true that divides the scholars who have different opinions about the existence of an actual historical Jesus. There are basically three ideas that have been forth with regards to the existence of an historical Jesus:

1. The Jesus of the bible didn't exist at all.
2. The stories about Jesus were derived from the events in the lives of a few real individuals and the imagination of the writers.
3. A real Jesus did exist that served as the founder of a Christian-Jewish sect.

While, it might make no difference to your conclusion that a real Jesus existed if you read through some of the links provided in the previous posts you might see how tenuous the basis for that conclusion is.

I have repeated some of the links here for your convenience.

Jesus didn't exist at all:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/

The biblical Jesus narrative is an amalgam of stories from the lives of several real people:
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

A real Jesus did exist that founded a Christian-Jewish sect
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

All of these sites agree on the same basic facts about the unreliability of the new testament as a source of historical data. They vary mostly as to how much of the information that might be true is true and what the significance of that true information is.
 
It has hit me that there is a problem with my use of Josephus' first reference to Jesus as evidence for a historical Jesus. Even if he actually did write that, his account of Jesus is so dead on to what the Gospels said about Jesus, that it is quite impossible that his account of Jesus could have originated from any writing or anyone that was non-Christian. So his account of Jesus adds nothing to the Jesus story that we would not learn from the four Gospels, and at most, if it isn't just an addition to Josephus' text, his account of Jesus just serves as an early reference in a work of history to what Christians believed happened in Christ's life.

[edited to add: So my quoting of Josephus reference to Jesus as evidence for a historical Jesus is basically like if a historical work was written and another book quoted from that work and I then cited both the part in the historical work that was quoted by the other book and the part in the other book that quoted from the historical work to try to add credibility to the view that a historical event happened.]

[edited to add: What I just said here also applies to the Tacitus quote.]

It also does seem pretty unlikely that a person who wasn't a Christian would not question the Christian claims about Christ, in fact, the text has Josephus actually buying into the claims about Jesus, leaving the reader wondering why Josephus never converted to Christianity.
 
From Our Charge

[JAR:

On behalf of our charge, Doctor X, we would like to thank you.

He is currently curled in what we presume is a fetal position, which seems to comprise his general reaction to any shocking event such as discovering there is no Easter Bunny, the girl in Hedwig and the Angry Inch is a guy, and when posters in a religious discussion alter or expand their opinions based on evidence.

We wish to personally thank you for his current state since it greatly eases our work and allows us great amusement when we periodically poke him with a cattle prod.

--Ed.]
 
It says in my "NIV Study Bible" on page 1431 that 91 percent of Mark is contained in Matthew and 53 percent of Mark is contained in Luke, which shows that something very fishy is going on. It does seem highly doubtful that Matthew and Luke wrote the Gospels attributed to them.
 
JAR:

You will really like Throckmorton's work linked above. It makes it very easy to compare the texts and see where Mk is quoted--without any attribution. Furthermore, you can see where Lk and Mt alter Mk. For example, right in the beginning, Mt and Lk correct Mk's misattribution of a prophecy to Isaiah [Mk 1:2-3--actually Malachi combined with Isaiah.--Ed.] and after "the Big Voice" speaks to Junior after his baptism, the spirit "immediately drove him out into the wilderness." [Mk 1:12.--Ed.]

"Drove?" How can anyone "drive out" a son of a god? Mt softens it [Mt 4:1] with, "then Jesus was led up by the Spirit. . . ." Lk inserts his genealogy--different from Mt's!--after the baptism then has, "And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit. . . ." [Lk 4:1].

There are many others.

Understanding the "why" behind a "sayings source" known as Q--such as Mt 3:11b-12 and Lk 3:16b-17--they attached this to Mk's 1:7-8.

Anyways, great resource folks!

--J.D.
 
ReasonableDoubt said:
I find sights such as the one listed above wholly defined by selection bias and close to worthless.

Far better, in my opinion, are ...
Click to expand...

Understood. However, within this article are bits and pieces of pre-Jesus Jewish tales I've read elsewhere. This one seemed to bring them all together. I like Early Christian Writings too.
 
JAR said:
Jesus' disciple Peter wrote in his first epistle, which was written in the early AD 60s
Click to expand...


Finally got around to looking this up.

Who Wrote The New Testament (Burton Mack) dates 1 Peter at 100 AD.

Asimov's Guide To The Bible (Isaac Asimov - I recommend this one)
has some interesting things to say about 1 Peter:

It might also be argued that the epistle was written long after both Peter and Paul were dead, and that it was merely ascribed to Peter to lend it authority. Thus, at the conclusion of the epistle, the writer sends greetings:
1 Peter 5:13 - The church that is at Babylon ...saluteth you...
Click to expand...

Clearly, this cannot be taken literally. There was no church at Babylon, for, indeed, the city no longer existed. But it is an old Biblical device to use the name of a bygone persecutor in order to indicate, discreetly, a present enemy. By Babylon, therefore, is surely meant Rome.
Click to expand...

Asimov concludes 1 Peter was written by someone other than Peter, under Emperor Domitian's reign which ended in 96 AD

The earliest date that Acts is thought to be possibly written in is AD 61.
Click to expand...

Burton Mack has Acts at 120 AD.
 
Doctor X,

The Bible does not say anything about Islam--it did not exist when the texts were written. It also does not say anything about Dianetics.
Click to expand...
Well of course the Bible doesn't mention Dianetics! It's clear that Christ is both the victim of an R6 'false memory' implant, and a recurring implant for each of us. What more do you need?

From here:
Hubbard on the "Christ Game"
"You'll find, by the way, another man at this stage, and his preclears will shift the identities and borrow facsimilies. Like men, there's what they call 'The ChristGame' and that game has been played and played and played and play..., honest to Pete, these cards are just so thin, they've been laid down amongst the coffee cups, and so forth, of the whole universe. You'll find out thousands of years before the year 1 AD, Earth, you will have facsimilies and dolls made up like Christ. Fact one: a million years ago is occasionally rigged with Christ and the devil and an angel. It's a fascinating thing, it's an old game. Here on Earth, there was undoubtably a Christ. One of the reasons he was ... he swept in so suddenly ah, and he, he would go forward so hard, is he had a good assist back of him in terms of an implant.", Philadelphia Doctorate Course, Tape #24, L. Ron Hubbard, 1952. [Real Audio]
Commentary:

Hubbard claims that Jesus Christ was real, but that Christianity was established not because of merit, but because Christ triggered an implant [false memory]. This is similar to his "Man on the cross, there was no Christ" statement.
Click to expand...

I hope this clears everything up.....
 
. . . well . . . yes . . . now that you put it that way . . . I feel the sudden urge to spend all my money learning how to think like a clam. . . .

--J.D.
 
triadboy said:
Burton Mack has Acts at 120 AD.
Click to expand...
Dillon, in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, citing Wikenhauser, Schmid, Kummel, and Conzelmann, points out that Mack is in the minority here, and that the majority of scholars date Acts somewhere between AD 80 and 90.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom