• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skepticwiki historical jesus

pipelineaudio said:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Existence_Of_Jesus

It seems as if skepticwiki points to a historical jesus, but really just using the bible as evidence
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, this isn't true. For example, the Bible describes Capernaum as a city, not a village. The SkepticWiki article contradicts the Bible on this point. This, I suspect is a quibble to your main point, which is ...

pipelineaudio said:
Seems like you may as well make the same argument for god or al-buraq or sinbad or heracles
Click to expand...

This is simply false. The SkepticWiki article treats the Bible as any other bunch of documents from antiquity. If you try to apply the same kind of historical criticism to the historical sources mentioning God or Hercules, you get different results. For example, this kind of argument,

Despite the claim in Matthew 2:23 that the prophets predicted that "He will be called a Nazorean," there is no Old Testament prophecy naming Nazareth or a Nazorean. The closest things are the prophecies referring to one who will be called the "branch," which in Hebrew is netser. The connection between "branch" and Nazareth, however, is a stretch, and if Matthew himself is making such a connection, that would suggest that Matthew is shoehorning, trying to force the prophecy to fit into the facts.
Click to expand...

helps bolster the case for a historical Jesus, but hardly helps the case for God. If the purported lifetime of Hercules could be well-placed in a particular time frame, and if after removing the obviously legendary material, there was still something left for Hercules to be and do, then we might have concluded that he was historical as well.

SkepticWiki is supposed to be a useful resource for skeptics. Sometimes this means that bad arguments which happen to be used by skeptics, like the argument that the Bible says that Pi = 3, get challenged. Note my sig:

One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. . . . The point I am trying to make is that to be authentic freethinkers, to be authentic truth seekers, we must draw on the best information available to substantiate our claims.
Click to expand...

The point of some of the articles on SkepticWiki is to correct these longstanding inaccuracies.
 
I don't think that using the Bible to attempt to prove the existence of a historical Jesus is going to work. For a start, the narrative story of the Gospels was stolen from pre-existing astro-theological cults:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

But the above article only debunks the narrative bits of the gospels (as historical fact). If there was an historical Jesus it was the Jesus of "Q":

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

Geoff
 
Last edited:
I think thats the point I was trying to make, using the bible to prove the bible seems like circular reasoning
 
JustGeoff said:
I don't think that using the Bible to attempt to prove the existence of a historical Jesus is going to work. For a start, the narrative story of the Gospels was stolen from pre-existing astro-theological cults:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
Click to expand...

That's from Acharya S. Her work is junk, as noted on this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=857739#post857739

pipelineaudio said:
I think thats the point I was trying to make, using the bible to prove the bible seems like circular reasoning
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what is happening. Rather what is happening is that we have the testimony of several unreliable sources, and we are trying to figure out what bits are likely to be true. Notice that in the above example, one is reading between the lines of Matthew's account, not trusting it, and it is a falsehood in the account--namely that the prophets predict that the Messiah would be a Nazarene--that points to useful information.
 
jjramsey said:
That's from Acharya S. Her work is junk, as noted on this thread:
Click to expand...

Her work is over the top and extreme. However, it's not junk. Zoroastrianism still exists and predates Christianity. When I firsty found that article several years ago I sent it to a representative of the Zoroastrian church and asked him what he thought. "Very interesting," he said, "but the Christians aren't going to like it one bit." The article is basically correct. It's just a little too enthusiastic.

The historical evidence is stacked against the narrative story of the gospels being anything other than a rip-off of pre-existing systems.
 
JustGeoff said:
Her work is over the top and extreme. However, it's not junk. Zoroastrianism still exists and predates Christianity.
Click to expand...

And it was likely an influence on Judaism, especially its ideas about resurrection. That we should see shades of Zoroastrianism in an offshoot of Judaism (namely Christianity) is unsurprising.

JustGeoff said:
When I firsty found that article several years ago I sent it to a representative of the Zoroastrian church and asked him what he thought. "Very interesting," he said, "but the Christians aren't going to like it one bit."
Click to expand...

So what? Being anti-Christian doesn't make it true.

JustGeoff said:
The historical evidence is stacked against the narrative story of the gospels being anything other than a rip-off of pre-existing systems.
Click to expand...

The problem is that when one actually digs into the supposed evidence, one finds that there is less than meets the eye. I certainly noticed this when researching Freke & Gandy:

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/The_Jesus_Mysteries
 
Last edited:
JustGeoff said:
Her work is over the top and extreme.
Click to expand...

That is one way to put it. The same could be said about D. Murdock's inflation of thier acerdenic credentials

However, it's not junk. Zoroastrianism still exists and predates Christianity. When I firsty found that article several years ago I sent it to a representative of the Zoroastrian church and asked him what he thought. "Very interesting," he said, "but the Christians aren't going to like it one bit."
Click to expand...

So what? as sources go you would have a hard time getting more partisan.

The article is basically correct. It's just a little too enthusiastic.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

The historical evidence is stacked against the narrative story of the gospels being anything other than a rip-off of pre-existing systems.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
I've just spent 500 posts trying to prove that physicalism is false. I'm not going to spend another 500 trying to prove the narrative story of the gospels is ripped from earlier religions. The links were put there for people who've never encountered them before. They can make their own minds up.

:)
 
JustGeoff said:
I don't think that using the Bible to attempt to prove the existence of a historical Jesus is going to work. For a start, the narrative story of the Gospels was stolen from pre-existing astro-theological cults:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
Click to expand...

ok lets take something from the first page

In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.)
Click to expand...

First it suggests a conspirocy that had been able to run continiously for about 1400 years and had survived significant upheval. Secondly it ignores the issue that Pope Leo X could hardly be described as the most relgion orentated of popes. This was the guy Martin Luther was rebeling against.
 
geni said:
ok lets take something from the first page
First it suggests a conspirocy that had been able to run continiously for about 1400 years and had survived significant upheval. Secondly it ignores the issue that Pope Leo X could hardly be described as the most relgion orentated of popes. This was the guy Martin Luther was rebeling against.
Click to expand...

I think you can't see the wood for the trees. There's loads of stuff in there which is wrong. But there's loads which is either based on the truth, or is true.

I notice that nobody has mentioned the other link I posted. The one that might actually give you some inkling as to the REAL truth behind the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth. I think such a person really did exist.
 
JustGeoff said:
I think you can't see the wood for the trees. There's loads of stuff in there which is wrong. But there's loads which is either based on the truth, or is true.
Click to expand...

And yet you reject the bible as a source?
 
JustGeoff said:
I don't think that using the Bible to attempt to prove the existence of a historical Jesus is going to work. For a start, the narrative story of the Gospels was stolen from pre-existing astro-theological cults:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
Click to expand...
JC did not exist!

Alexander the Great:

* had portents associated with his birth and death
* suffered from epilepsy
* was bisexual
* claimed divine ancestry
* owned a horse with vestigial toes
* was a great general
* founded an empire
* visited Egypt
* was murdered by his colleagues

Therefore, Julius Caesar is a myth.
 
If the logic behind the septicwiki Jesus story is right, then loosechange proves a 911 conspiracy by the raliens
 
pipelineaudio said:
If the logic behind the septicwiki Jesus story is right, then loosechange proves a 911 conspiracy by the raliens
Click to expand...

jjramsey is the author of that Skepticwiki piece. I'm starting to believe that he really wants to believe in a historical Jesus for more reasons that just getting history 'right'.

I'm agnostic in regards to Jesus' historical existence, but I definitely find that the mythisist case makes a lot more sense than the theological based version of events in regards to the historical evidence, biblical writings, and 2nd century apologist viewpoints.
 
geni said:
And yet you reject the bible as a source?
Click to expand...


I don't reject the bible as a source. I think that the bible, along with an accurate time-line of its authorship, gives a real accurate picture of what was known about Jesus, and when it was known.
 
geetarmoore said:
I'm agnostic in regards to Jesus' historical existence, but I definitely find that the mythisist case makes a lot more sense than the theological based version of events in regards to the historical evidence, biblical writings, and 2nd century apologist viewpoints.
Click to expand...

On what basis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom