i just discovered jesusisbuddha.com. i tried to email the address on the main page but it was returned. needless to say, i am surprised at some of the ideas being offered. here is my response
the scholarly community is in almost unanimous agreement that there was a historical Jesus. even the liberal critics of the jesus seminar (second quest for the historical Jesus) agree that Jesus existed. gary habermas has all but shut the door on any doubt.
you say that christianity is a copy of buddhism. well, buddhism is a copy of hinduism. my point is that where you see similarities, those are universal themes. it doesn't mean that christianity isn't unique or copied something else. people have a numinous sense that enables them to know truth in a general revelatory way, sometimes, even without special revelation.
there is absolutely no evidence that i am aware of that late first century, early second century judeans had any contact whatsoever with the far east. how could they have copied ancient sanskrit manuscripts? they had no access to them.
christianity and buddhism differ in very crucial, fundamental ways. if you know anything about the third quest for the historical Jesus, then you know that the writings of the new testament are thoroughgoing judaism. Jesus and the first christians were orthodox jews to the core. is judaism a copy of buddhism? absolutely not. to say that christianity copied themes of buddhism is to not understand judaism at all.
the towering work of n. t. wright reveals that there wasn't a q document. to believe there was one is problematic, unnecessary and just plain outdated.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Hello and welcome to the forum trae. What do you mean by "response to clt?"
The claim that scholarly community is in unanimous agreement that there was a historical Jesus is not accurate. Gary Habermas is another Christian apologist out to shore up his faith at all costs. Even Christian New Testament scholars can't agree on the so-called evidence for Jesus historicity.
Quote:
Jesus famed far and wide:
"These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the following:
- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ) by D. M. Murdock page 85
Quote:
"Additionally, even though many times in the gospels Jesus was claimed to have been famed far and wide, not one historian of the era was aware of his existence, not even individuals who lived in, traveled around, or wrote about the relevant areas. The brief mentions of Christ, Christians or Christianity we possess from non-Christian sources are late and dubious as to their authenticity and/or value. Nor is there any valid scientific archaeological evidence demonstrating the gospel story to be true or even to support the existence of Jesus Christ. Despite this utter lack of evidence, Christian apologists and authorities make erroneous and misleading claims that there are "considerable reports" and "a surprisingly large amount of detail" regarding the life of Jesus and early Christianity."
- WWJ page 257
Quote:
"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."
- Merrill C. Tenney
- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) 85-86
* Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.
Quote:
"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."
- John P. Meier
- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ, page 86
* Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, Catholic priest and monsignor
Quote:
"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"
- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v.6,83) - "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) 84
Quote:
"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
- F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" (163) founder of the modern evangelical movement
- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) page 84
Quote:
"The gospels are in fact anonymous"
- Dr. Craig L. Blomberg
- WWJ, page 60
Quote:
"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."
- Dr. John Dominic Crossan
- WWJ, page 24
* Dr. Crossan is a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual and higher criticism. He is especially vocal in the field of Historical Jesus studies
Quote:
"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3
1. Metzger, HLS, 8.
2. Meier, II, 536.
3. Geisler, CA, 320.
- Who Was Jesus? page 259
Prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.
Quote:
"The Canon: A Second-Century Composition
"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.
"The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:
1. Ur-Markus (150) 2. Ur-Lukas (150+) 3. Luke (170) 4. Mark (175) 5. John (178) 6. Matthew (180)
"To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts...."
Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ contains commentary from the following Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars:
* John Ankerberg * Craig L. Blomberg * F.F. Bruce * William Lane Craig * John Dominic Crossan * Bart Ehrman * Norman Geisler * Gary Habermas * Josh McDowell * John P. Meier * Bruce M. Metzger * J.P. Moreland * Ronald H. Nash * Lee Strobel * Merrill C. Tenney * Ben Witherington * Edwin Yamauchi * And more!
Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ also includes a Foreword by Dr. Robert M. Price!"
Who was Jesus? (WWJ) is perfect for the believer and non-believer alike!
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Regarding jesusisbuddha.com here's what 30 year Buddhist and Sanskrit scholar Dr. Lindtner had to say:
Quote:
In her most recent essay, "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus", the American scholar Acharya S /D.M.Murdock argues, forcefully and boldly, in favour of the thesis that Jesus was not at all a historical person, but rather - as so many other sons of God in those days of old - a personification of the Sun.
In support of this point of view - one that she is not the first to advocate, but for which she deserves credit in graciously attending the advocacy - she adduces Christian as well as non-Christian sources, primary as well as secondary. Unremittingly, she reminds her readers of the fact that nearly everything that is said or written about the Jesus called Christ, had already at an earlier date been reported about the Buddha - or the Buddhas (too many to count), about Krishna, about Horus, about Prometheus, and, indeed, about numerous other now less known mythical figures.
That this is actually the case, no scholar familiar with Hellenistic religion and syncretism will be able to deny. Should he venture to deny, as some still do, then his colleagues can only deplore his ignorance of the relevant sources. Should anyone, moreover, wish to claim that Jesus - as opposed to so many other sons of God - is a historical person, then that defender of the old faith has a very heavy burden of proof resting upon his shoulders.
Our theologians, as a rule, simply postulate that there is no reason to doubt that Jesus was or is a historical person. There may be doubt, they admit, about the nature of that person, about the credibility of the evangelists in certain details etc., but about his existence, no, no, there can be no doubt.
Such a stand is apologetic and anything but scientific. An appeal to mere faith is an appeal to sheer ignorance.
Under such circumstances, our professional historians of religion would be expected to raise a storm of protest. They do, as a rule, fail to protest, and their failure is nothing short of a disgrace. Educated historians ought to enlighten and warn the public that there is neither solid external or internal evidence in support of the claim that Jesus was in any way a historical person.
Did Jesus really exist? - the question is not a new one. The great German theologian, Adolf Harnack once (back in 1909, before he became von Harnack) called it "the embarrassing question", i.e. embarrassing for those who raised it (viz. Kalthoff, Jensen, Drews). We must now say that von Harnack got it wrong. The question is now embarrassing - and even more so now than then - for those who fail to account for the lack of external and internal evidence, and for the parallels that are now much more numerous and close than they were in 1909. (Adolf Harnack, "Hat Jesus gelebt?" in: Aus Wissenschaft und Leben, Zweiter Band, Giessen 1911, pp. 167-175.). Above all, new Buddhist sources, in Sanskrit, have provided numerous literal parallels, i.e. direct loans.
The reason for clinging to the myth of Jesus as a historical person is, I assume, double: First of all, it is not easy to rid oneself of old and inveterate misconceptions. Such struggle not only requires freedom of mind but also personal courage - both are rare at a time where a higher Classical education and civilization with emphasis on human character have been banned from our universities and now are but remnants of brighter days.
Then there is the fear of loss of livelihood. If the story of Jesus is merely a solar myth - then our priesthood will have lost all its credibility. Who can make a living by talking about the Sun?
The edifice of Christianity - in any form it may be - rests on a ground of nonsense neatly summarized in the Apostles' Creed - that the mother of Jesus, who went to hell, was a virgin etc. etc.
If the thesis that Jesus is a mere solar myth is correct - and who is there to rebuke its validity on solid scholarly grounds? - then this must have serious consequences not just for conscientious Christian individuals, but also for a society that considers itself to be Christian in this or that respect.
The Danish church - not unlike other Lutheran or reformed churches - considers itself to be fairly "open and broad, " I am told. But is it "open and broad" enough to give room for the view that Jesus never existed, and for infidels taking that stand?
In Denmark (and elsewhere) we recognize and allow other religions, provided they do not violate certain rules or standards of decency and decorum - reflecting a Classical, and not at all a Christian tradition, I may add. The concept of decency or decorum may not be altogether clear to a modern mind, but no matter how we agree about definitions, it would be hard to leave out honesty and truthfulness from that definition. How can we have decency without honesty?
If, thus, honesty and truthfulness be recognized as natural and essential parts of decency and decorum, it follows, surely, that our professional professors of theology, along with our bishops and our priests find themselves facing a difficult dilemma: Either they must, openly and boldly, step forward to defend their honour and refute the thesis that Jesus be merely a solar myth, or they must, should they choose to remain silent, fear the disgraceful charge that their lack of honesty - not to speak of "Lutheran boldness" - makes them violate the standards of decorum and decency.
In other words: If our professional theologians do not respond and come up with strong arguments against the thesis of Jesus as a solar myth, then they will, day by day, transform the church and Christian society that for centuries have provided them with even more than their daily bread into institutions the nature of which is increasingly infested by dishonesty and lack of decency - until the day of the final and total collapse of the ancient myth.
The claim that scholarly community is in unanimous agreement that there was a historical Jesus is not accurate.
you seem to have overlooked my citation of the jesus seminar. even scholars who are the most critical of christianity acknowledge the historical Jesus. borg, crossan, mack, et al. if the most critical scholars are in agreement with christian scholars, then it's pretty much unanimous. pretty much every scholar that amounts to anything in christology acknowledges this.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Gary Habermas is another Christian apologist out to shore up his faith at all costs.
this is an all too common response from people who are unaware of the scholarship. if you haven't read the historical Jesus by habermas, you should. the citations are overwhelming. from the standpoint of ancient history, the existence of the historical Jesus is as strong as anything else. it's clearly not a case of an apologist making something up. this type of response is called the genetic fallacy. you're attacking an idea because of it's origins instead of addressing habermas' writings on their own merits. it's usually an excuse to get out of dealing with the scholarship. it's much easier to attack a person because of their beliefs than actually do the academic work. besides, it's not like habermas it out on an island with this issue. at this point, it's as solid as anything from antiquity.
Quote:
"Additionally, even though many times in the gospels Jesus was claimed to have been famed far and wide, not one historian of the era was aware of his existence, not even individuals who lived in, traveled around, or wrote about the relevant areas. The brief mentions of Christ, Christians or Christianity we possess from non-Christian sources are late and dubious as to their authenticity and/or value.
this kind of response is called hurling the elephant. habermas, william lane craig, n.t. wright, crossan, et al, have chronicled in detail the ancient works and again, the existence of the historical christ is on very solid ground. this point isn't even debated among the leading ancient historians. i myself have seen all of these people in scholastic and debate settings and there isn't mention of Jesus not existing.
Quote:
Nor is there any valid scientific archaeological evidence demonstrating the gospel story to be true or even to support the existence of Jesus Christ."- WWJ page 257
what archaeological evidence would be conclusive proof of Jesus' existence or of the crucifixion? well, none. what this underscores is that the standard that is being used is unreasonable. by all standards of what we accept as true from antiquity, the existence of Jesus is as good as about anything else.
Quote:
"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available.
this is a great example of a misleading statement. the life of Jesus Christ is better chronicled than any other person from antiquity. yet, it's not good enough. this illustrates how certain people operate on a sliding scale. when something is offered as evidence, it's the wrong kind of evidence. pontius pilate, the hittites, belshazzar, these are all good examples of people that critics said didn't exist because there wasn't extra biblical mention of them. along comes archaeological proof and the sidestepping begins in the form of them being too mundane to prove anything substantial. it's a clear case of people missing the forest because of the trees.
Quote:
"The gospels are in fact anonymous"- Dr. Craig L. Blomberg- WWJ, page 60
which, of course, is not a problem from a historical standpoint
Quote:
Prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.
if you're familiar with the work of dan wallace, then you know that this statement isn't true. also, read the origins of the bible edited by phillip comfort.
Quote:
"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke
this is outdated, second quest for the historical Jesus scholarship. this kind of statement has been superceded by the third quest scholars who have conclusively shown that the revisionist tendencies of the second quest scholars are unacceptable for historical epistemological methodology. it requires more than just fantasizing and reorganizing "layers" of ancient documents as crossan does. it shows a complete lack of understanding of what was going on in judea throughout antiquity up to the second century. e. p. sanders, geza vermes, among others have shown that second questers are now effectively obsolete.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
trae "you seem to have overlooked my citation of the jesus seminar"
Nope, the JS did nothing to demonstrate an historical Jesus. They assumed a priori that Jesus existed and worked from there. Still, there were several JS members who did not accept a HJ. The findings of the Jesus Seminar (Westar Inst.) actually disprove 85% of what is claimed Jesus said and did in the NT. The other 15% couldn't be verified either way. So, the idea that they unanimously accept a HJ is disingenuous.
Quote:
On page 108, of "The Gospel of Jesus" "99" by Jesus Seminar Director & founder Robert W. Funk:
"The Jesus Seminar concludes that approximately 85% of the words and actions of Jesus as reported in the New Testament are not authentic -- he never said or did most of those things."
Quote:
On page 270, of "The 5 gospels: what did Jesus really say" by Robert W. Funk "93", it says:
"the great commission of Matt 28:18-20 has its counterpart in Luke 24:47-48 & Acts 1:8 (both Luke & Acts were written by the same author). John 20:22-23. These commissions have little in common, which indicates that they have been created by the individual evangelists to express their conception of the future of the Jesus movement. As a consequence, they cannot be traced back to Jesus."
Quote:
"The religiously independent (though primarily Christian) scholars in the Westar Institute, which includes more than 70 bible scholars with Ph.D or equivalent, conclude: "The five gospels that report appearances (Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Gospel of the Hebrews) go their separate ways when they are not rewriting Mark; their reports cannot be reconciled to each other. Hard historical evidence is sparse." http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php
Quote:
trae "if the most critical scholars are in agreement with christian scholars, then it's pretty much unanimous."
Myself and others here have read most of their arguments and they are consistent in claims of a HJ yet, they base it on the flimsiest non-credible sources that simply do not hold water. The book, Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ, has thoroughly addressed their arguments with credible facts and other Christian authorities that disagree with your claims. All you have to offer here are based in the fallacies known as appeal to authority and argumentum ad populam.
Quote:
trae "the existence of the historical Jesus is as strong as anything else."
I'm sorry but that is just not a credible statement.
Quote:
trae "this kind of response is called hurling the elephant. habermas, william lane craig, n.t. wright, crossan, et al, have chronicled in detail the ancient works and again, the existence of the historical christ is on very solid ground. this point isn't even debated among the leading ancient historians. i myself have seen all of these people in scholastic and debate settings and there isn't mention of Jesus not existing."
LOL, "hurling the elephant" sounds like a JP Holding invention creating an excuse to get out of addressing the issue at hand. If you/they had any credible response to offer you wouldn't need to cry foul. The fact remains that in the over 20 passages in the NT of Jesus being famed far and wide, none have ever been substantiated with credible evidence.
The HJ has NEVER been on solid ground but, you do inadvertently make my argument for me here when you claim the HJ "isn't even debated among the leading ancient historians. i myself have seen all of these people in scholastic and debate settings and there isn't mention of Jesus not existing."
Thanks for the inadvertent admission that these scholars are just assuming a priori that Jesus existed without ever substantiating the claim with CREDIBLE evidence first. Another factoid to bare in mind is that NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism or the mythicist position in order to receive their Ph.D. So, expecting these scholars to know much about that subject is far beyond their realm of expertise.
Quote:
trae "this is a great example of a misleading statement. the life of Jesus Christ is better chronicled than any other person from antiquity."
That so-called misleading statement came from a well respected Christian authority. Claiming Jesus is "better chronicled than any other person from antiquity" ruins any credibility of the person making such a claim. You can make that claim for another 2,000 years, it will never make it so.
Quote:
trae "this is outdated, second quest for the historical Jesus scholarship...among others have shown that second questers are now effectively obsolete."
It has already been addressed in WWJ, which you have never read. I guess that makes us the last quest.
Nope, the JS did nothing to demonstrate an historical Jesus. They assumed a priori that Jesus existed and worked from there.
you can call it that if you like or you can recognize the reality that they did so because of the immense weight of scholarship on the matter. if they voted and found none of Jesus' sayings authentic, they would have questioned His existence en masse but, they didn't. they still don't. even the jesus seminar's ill-reputed methodologies, hypercriticality and penchant for revisionist history still led them to acknowledge the historical Jesus.
to have such a blithe disregard for several centuries of convincing and reasonable evidence is a bit disturbing.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Myself and others here have read most of their arguments and they are consistent in claims of a HJ yet, they base it on the flimsiest non-credible sources that simply do not hold water.
any person is of course free to diverge from scholarship but, it would be nice if that was admitted. again, i refer to habermas and craig who have chronicled the sources in detail. these aren't really debated in the academic community because the case is very solid.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
The book, Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ, has thoroughly addressed their arguments with credible facts and other Christian authorities that disagree with your claims. All you have to offer here are based in the fallacies known as appeal to authority and argumentum ad populam.
first, anyone can write a book. however, not anyone can convince the community of experts that the book is credible. second, they're not my claims. they're the claims of several centuries of scholarship on the matter. the quests for the historical Jesus would be a good place to start for study. third, it's an appeal to authority in the same way that the big bang is an appeal to scientific authority. no one alive was there to witness it but experts are unified on the matter.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
I'm sorry but that is just not a credible statement.
more blithe disregard for the evidence. let me clarify the statement, if you compare the case for the historical Jesus against the existence of any similar thing from antiquity, the historical Jesus is just as convincing. this is based on pretty much any widely accepted historiographical methodologies. to state otherwise is to operate outside of accepted methodologies. it would be tantamount to a revolution in historical methodology. this statement is publicly documented in pretty much any book written by a reputable historian on the subject of the historical Jesus. feel free to watch the debates amongst the best regarded experts that are on youtube, dvd or any other outlet. the existence of Jesus is not in doubt. what exactly He said and what exactly was written about Him are the subjects of the debates, books and lectures. for such widely available information to be called not credible is a bit shocking.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
hurling the elephant" sounds like a JP Holding invention creating an excuse to get out of addressing the issue at hand. If you/they had any credible response to offer you wouldn't need to cry foul.
hurling the elephant is when a person makes several broad, sweeping statements without any support for the details of those statements which then leads to a spurious conclusion. how can it be said that i'm not addressing the issue at hand? i have offered quite a few details and scholarly works for my points. we may disagree that the support for Jesus is convincing but, one of us is operating behind the weight of several centuries of scholarship and the other is operating in contradiction to that.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Thanks for the inadvertent admission that these scholars are just assuming a priori that Jesus existed without ever substantiating the claim with CREDIBLE evidence first.
you are incorrect. scholars, such as the ones from the jesus seminar, do not start with an a priori commitment to Jesus' existence. in fact, they start from the assumption that He does not. the scholars that are most critical of christianity have no predisposition to Jesus that causes them to operate as you claim they do. if you were to correct that mistaken assumption, you might be on more solid academic ground.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Another factoid to bare in mind is that NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism or the mythicist position in order to receive their Ph.D. So, expecting these scholars to know much about that subject is far beyond their realm of expertise.
i see where this is coming from. you have a pet theory that you want to get into the mainstream, perhaps for political or monetary reasons. well, best of luck to you in your endeavor.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
trae "if they voted and found none of Jesus' sayings authentic, they would have questioned His existence en masse but, they didn't."
Nope, that wasn't the purpose for the Jesus Seminar. They did admit, as I already quoted for you, that 85% of the words and deeds of Jesus were not authentic. The remaining 15% was unverifiable either way. So, your constant claims that the case for a HJ are solid is nothing but a complete divorce from reality. As we are still waiting for credible evidence 2,000 years later and it's not looking promising in any way whatsoever.
If you have solid evidence for a historical Jesus then, you need to share it because it would be the first time throughout history anyone has done so. I'm sure you'd be on the evening news and possibly win a prize. I'm sure Jesus would be really happy too - for coming through on a few things God couldn't.
Quote:
trae "any person is of course free to diverge from scholarship"
I am still waiting for "scholarship" to provide CREDIBLE evidence that Jesus existed. Should your sources really be considered scholarship when they can't substantiate their claims with credible evidence?
Quote:
trae "these aren't really debated in the academic community because the case is very solid."
Christian special interest and lobbyist groups play an important role enabling academia to continue on with this fraud of claiming the case for Jesus is solid. It's not - Jesus Never Existed
Quote:
trae "third, it's an appeal to authority in the same way that the big bang is an appeal to scientific authority. no one alive was there to witness it but experts are unified on the matter."
I must thank you again for the inadvertent admission that no contemporary eyewitnesses ever mentioned Jesus during his lifetime and not for many decades after his supposed death. However, the difference with your comparison is that there's no evidence of human existence during the big bang so, it's a hyperbolic attempt at a hand-waving dismissal that has failed utterly and even backfired.
Quote:
trae "feel free to watch the debates amongst the best regarded experts that are on youtube, dvd or any other outlet. the existence of Jesus is not in doubt"
Have been doing for years - not impressed. The only reason the existence of a HJ is not in doubt in your/their minds is because they've never tried to substantiate the claim. What I see is just special pleading with such a low level of scrutiny that almost anything that agrees with them and their Christian beliefs is acceptable. That's not scholarship in any way whatsoever.
Quote:
trae "hurling the elephant is when a person makes several broad, sweeping statements without any support for the details of those statements which then leads to a spurious conclusion. how can it be said that i'm not addressing the issue at hand?"
I'm aware of what the phrase is, you just used it improperly. I had just provided direct scriptures from the bible (over 20) claiming Jesus was famed far and wide. Now, how does that get confused with "several broad, sweeping statements without any support"? It doesn't. If Jesus was a historical character then you/scholarship should easily be able to substantiate those claims in the NT. The fact remains that you can't nor can scholarship so, just stop pretending that the case for a HJ is solid. It's not.
Quote:
trae "i have offered quite a few details and scholarly works for my points"
Nope, all you've offered thus far have been based in the fallacies known as appeal to authority and argumentum ad populam.
Quote:
trae "you are incorrect. scholars, such as the ones from the jesus seminar, do not start with an a priori commitment to Jesus' existence."
I have read their books and I am correct as my quotes from them above show. Do you really have a sincere interest in investigating whether or not Jesus was historical? I seriously doubt it. Would you ever honestly concede there is no credible evidence for a HJ? I am doubtful. trae, you don't appear to be looking at any of the counter arguments at all because even Christian NT scholars disagree with you, which I provided above but you selectively chose to omit or offered some hand-waving dismissal at best. I'm a former saved, baptized, evangelical Christian of 20 years. I simply got tired of being lied to. When you get tired of being lied to then, maybe you'll understand.
Quote:
trae "i see where this is coming from. you have a pet theory that you want to get into the mainstream, perhaps for political or monetary reasons."
LOL, Christians are not in any position to harass anyone about pet theories, political or monetary motivations on any level. The fact remains that NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism or the mythicist position in order to receive their Ph.D. So, expecting these scholars to know much about that subject is far beyond their realm of expertise. What have you read or studied about the mythicist position, trae? Let me guess, nothing - same as academia?
I'll help you get started:
Quote:
The Mythicist Position:
"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not “real people” but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called “astrotheology.” As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."
"I find it undeniable that ... many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations."
"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
Nope, that wasn't the purpose for the Jesus Seminar.
first, it was one of the purposes of the jesus seminar so i was correct on that point. The initial work was to evaluate the historical accuracy of the evidence for Jesus using any relevant ancient manuscripts. Second, it doesn't matter if that was one of their purposes or not. My statement is still true. If they voted on Jesus' sayings and concluded He said none of them, they would have written that the stories in the gospels were complete fabrications.
One point you are still not addressing is the fact that even historical scholars who are hostile to christianity acknowledge Jesus' existence. These people have no predisposition to favor christianity in any way whatsoever. The jesus seminar claims that they approached the issue with a blank slate. You are basically saying that they lied in that they really had an a priori commitment to Jesus' existence even though they said they didn't. That's going to be difficult to prove.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
I am still waiting for "scholarship" to provide CREDIBLE evidence that Jesus existed.
you didn't respond to my point that using historiographical methodologies that are presently employed to determine what is true from antiquity, the evidence for the historical Jesus is reasonable to establish His existence. What you're proposing would be to stand historiography on it's head using methods that are not accepted by the scholarly community. All of antiquity would be thrown into doubt with the level of hyperskepticism you are employing against christianity. It's a double standard.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Christian special interest and lobbyist groups play an important role enabling academia to continue on with this fraud of claiming the case for Jesus is solid.
wow. You talk about being divorced from reality. So what you're proposing is that somehow christians have paid off people who are hostile to christianity to perpetuate a fraud in public; that they say Jesus existed when they really don't believe that. That is quite a conspiracy theory. The details of such a conspiracy would certainly make for an interesting book. How in the world could christian groups be able to commit a worldwide, centuries old fraud?
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
I must thank you again for the inadvertent admission that no contemporary eyewitnesses ever mentioned Jesus during his lifetime and not for many decades after his supposed death.
that is correct. No contemporary eyewitnesses saw Jesus. Contemporaneous eyewitnesses did see Jesus and recorded it. Those writings have withstood the scrutiny of higher criticism and historiography for a couple of centuries now. On occasion, even atheists become christians when they investigate the matter.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
However, the difference with your comparison is that there's no evidence of human existence during the big bang so, it's a hyperbolic attempt at a hand-waving dismissal that has failed utterly and even backfired.
i don't think you understand how wand waiving works. What i stated wasn't hand waiving. It was an analogy, and a correct one. I'm stating what is reality. You have even agreed with it when you said you have watched the available debates yourself. The historical experts have basically been in agreement that Jesus existed for a couple of centuries now. If i had made a hand waive statement, i wouldn't have included the analogy about the big bang. I would have just said "you're wrong" which is essentially all you've said. "the entire historical expert community has been wrong for 200 years and i'm right". In fact, you may be right in the end but, you have somewhat of a mountain to climb at this time.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
I'm aware of what the phrase is, you just used it improperly. I had just provided direct scriptures from the bible (over 20) claiming Jesus was famed far and wide. Now, how does that get confused with "several broad, sweeping statements without any support"?
here is the relevant quote: "not one historian of the era was aware of his existence, not even individuals who lived in, traveled around, or wrote about the relevant areas. The brief mentions of Christ, Christians or Christianity we possess from non-Christian sources are late and dubious as to their authenticity and/or value." If you were to make this statement in a room full of historical experts, they would say you're hurling the elephant because you are making broad statements, not providing support for each of them and then concluding Jesus didn't exist. Again, the evidence is available for public consumption. Craig blomberg in the historical reliability of the gospels. N.t. wright in his towering series on christian origins. crossan in the historical jesus. New testament times by wm. Tenney. I've already mentioned wm lane craig and habermas. It's a very solid case. Unless you're using historical methods that are foreign to the scholarly community and/or methods that are completely revolutionary.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
all you've offered thus far have been based in the fallacies known as appeal to authority and argumentum ad populam.
i don't know if you realize this or not but, sometimes appeal to authority and popularity is a good thing. In epistemology, it can be used to form justified true belief. Philosophically, it's called foundationalism. It prevents someone making outrageous, unreasonable claims from erasing the structure of brute fact.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Christians are not in any position to harass anyone about pet theories, political or monetary motivations on any level.
i don't know if you're directing that at me but, you have no idea whether i'm a christian or not. I could be a former atheist. There are several prominent atheists who have become christian when they conducted an investigation of christianity's claims for the very purpose of undermining it.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
The fact remains that NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism or the mythicist position in order to receive their Ph.D. So, expecting these scholars to know much about that subject is far beyond their realm of expertise.
if you honestly think that christian scholars are unaware of the mythological aspects of religion, then you are very naive. Whole chapters and indeed books are written on the subject by scores of apologists. They may not state that they are formally addressing the "mythicist" position but, those issues have indeed been addressed by religious experts.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
trae, let me ask you, what is your purpose here, to proselytize? to save us? to prove a HJ? And, I notice you omitted my previous questions:
Do you really have a sincere interest in investigating whether or not Jesus was historical? Would you ever honestly concede there is no credible evidence for a HJ?"
Quote:
trae "The initial work was to evaluate the historical accuracy of the evidence for Jesus using any relevant ancient manuscripts."
What books of theirs have you actually read? The purpose was never to prove or disprove a HJ, as you keep repeating over and over, scholars don't debate whether or not Jesus existed because it's "SOLID," remember?
Quote:
trae "i myself have seen all of these people in scholastic and debate settings and there isn't mention of Jesus not existing."
The purpose was to investigate the texts prior to the 4th century cannon for authenticity. So, your claim of using just "any" relevant text is completely false.
Quote:
trae "If they voted on Jesus' sayings and concluded He said none of them, they would have written that the stories in the gospels were complete fabrications."
Quote:
On page 108, of "The Gospel of Jesus" "99" by Jesus Seminar Director & founder Robert W. Funk:
"The Jesus Seminar concludes that approximately 85% of the words and actions of Jesus as reported in the New Testament are not authentic -- he never said or did most of those things."
Go read the book, trae.
Quote:
trae "You are basically saying that they lied in that they really had an a priori commitment to Jesus' existence even though they said they didn't. That's going to be difficult to prove."
Again, You have already conceded inadvertently that scholars already accept a priori that Jesus' existence is on "solid ground" so, why would these scholars waste their time debating that issue if it's so solid? trae, the more you post the more your credibility diminishes.
Quote:
"The seminar treats the gospels as historical sources that represent Jesus' actual words and deeds as well as elaborations of the early Christian community and of the gospel authors."
Do you understand the above quote? Jesus' existence was not in question, however, the authenticity of the texts were. Do you understand the difference?
Quote:
trae "All of antiquity would be thrown into doubt with the level of hyperskepticism you are employing against christianity. It's a double standard."
Your selective perception knows no bounds, trae.
Quote:
trae "So what you're proposing is that somehow christians have paid off people who are hostile to christianity to perpetuate a fraud in public ... The details of such a conspiracy would certainly make for an interesting book. How in the world could christian groups be able to commit a worldwide, centuries old fraud?"
LOL, Christians have a long history of bigotry, fundamentalism and genocide with much more to come as stated in their so-called prophetic end times scenario where 2/3rds of the human population (non-believers) will be wiped from the face of the earth. Nice God & religion you've got there. Pagan Destruction Chronology (314-870 C.E)
"Scholars in general can also be notoriously cautious, particularly when it comes to stepping on the toes of mainstream institutions, especially those of a religious bent—and there have been many such establishments, including major universities like Yale and Harvard, both of which started as Christian divinity schools.1 Numerous other institutions in the Christian world were either founded specifically as Christian universities and colleges or had seminaries attached to them. As stated on the Princeton Theological Seminary website, regarding early American education:
"Within the last quarter of the eighteenth century, all learning…could be adequately taught and studied in the schools and colleges, nearly all of which were church initiated."2
- CIE 505
1. See the Yale Divinity School website: “Training for the Christian Ministry was a main purpose in the founding of Yale College in 1701.” (“History of Yale Divinity School.”) See also the Harvard Divinity School website: “The origins of Harvard Divinity School and the study of theology at Harvard can be traced back to the very beginning of Harvard College.” (“Harvard Divinity School–History and Mission.”) http://www.hds.harvard.edu/history.html 2. “About Princeton Theological Seminary–History of the Seminary.” http://www.ptsem.edu/About/mission.php
There are countless other colleges and universities besides Yale, Harvard and Princeton that began as some sort of religious institution or organization. Such as Columbia for example:
Quote:
"Controversy preceded the founding of the College, with various groups competing to determine its location and religious affiliation ... Anglicans prevailed"
"In July 1754...the first classes in a new schoolhouse adjoining Trinity Church"
trae "No contemporary eyewitnesses saw Jesus. Contemporaneous eyewitnesses did see Jesus and recorded it."
Are you seriously going to contradict yourself so blatantly?
Quote:
trae "The historical experts have basically been in agreement that Jesus existed for a couple of centuries now."
Are you delusional? Repeating these types of claims forever will never make it so. What part of this link do you not understand - Jesus Never Existed? I have already provided you with quotes from Christian NT scholars above that disagree with you.
Quote:
trae "here is the relevant quote: "not one historian of the era was aware of his existence, not even individuals who lived in, traveled around, or wrote about the relevant areas. The brief mentions of Christ, Christians or Christianity we possess from non-Christian sources are late and dubious as to their authenticity and/or value."
Nope, you completely omitted the most relevant part:
Quote:
Jesus famed far and wide:
"These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the following:
- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ) by D. M. Murdock page 85
If there's a HJ then, you should easily be able to substantiate the above scriptures. Sadly nobody has ever done so with CREDIBLE evidence.
Quote:
trae "if you honestly think that christian scholars are unaware of the mythological aspects of religion, then you are very naive. Whole chapters and indeed books are written on the subject by scores of apologists. They may not state that they are formally addressing the "mythicist" position but, those issues have indeed been addressed by religious experts."
Sorry but, you are clearly unaware that NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism or the mythicist position in order to receive their Ph.D. So, expecting these scholars to know much about that subject is far beyond their realm of expertise.
But, since you're the expert why don't you explain it to me? Lets have a little test, why don't you e-mail all the links, quotes & video I shared on mythicism and the mythicist position from my post above with scholars to get their feedback and have them explain precisely what studies on mythology are part of their required courses to get their Ph.D. then, share that feedback and info with us here.
Do you really have a sincere interest in investigating whether or not Jesus was historical?
the answer should be obvious. investigating the historical Jesus is somewhat of a hobby for me.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
What books of theirs have you actually read?
i've read burton mack, marcus borg, crossan, funk, et al. after evaluating the evidence, crossan believes Jesus to be an itinerant sage who endeavored to overthrow the system of client/patronage using hellenistic cynic style philosophy. Most of the highest regarded fellows believe something similar. They very easily could have come to the conclusion that He didn't exist. They claim to be objective and impartial in their analysis.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
The purpose was never to prove or disprove a HJ,
this misconception lies at the heart of the matter. From their own forum:
"The Seminar's on-going project has been to evaluate the historical significance of every shred of evidence about Jesus from antiquity (about 30-200 CE)...The first phases of the Seminar's work on the evaluation & interpretation of Jesus tradition are complete & the results have been published."
From wikipedia:
"The seminar uses votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth...The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus...The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity...The scholars attending attempt to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus."
two things are important there. First, they are trying to reconstruct Jesus meaning, determine whether He actually existed or not. If He did, what did He say and do. Second, they placed the burden of proof on anyone who claimed the gospels are accurate meaning, they did not approach Jesus' existence with an a priori assumption in the affirmative.
Again, if you know anything about these scholars, you know that these people have no predisposition to Jesus' existence. They have no reason to coddle the church by pretending He exists when they believe otherwise. Yet, belief in the historical Jesus persists even among those hostile to christianity. Your only attempt to explain this was the sweeping christian conspiracy theory.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
The purpose was to investigate the texts prior to the 4th century cannon for authenticity. So, your claim of using just "any" relevant text is completely false.
obviously by "any relevant text" i meant ancient manuscripts. Also, what exactly do you think "for authenticity" means? It means to see if what they're describing actually happened or not and if so, the degree to which it is accurate. They voted on which of Jesus' sayings, miracles and actions were "authentic". They easily could have come up with none meaning they doubt that Jesus even existed. The highest regarded "fellows" of the jesus seminar find no reason to think Jesus didn't exist. This is not an opinion or speculation. It's a fact.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Again, You have already conceded inadvertently that scholars already accept a priori that Jesus' existence is on "solid ground" so, why would these scholars waste their time debating that issue if it's so solid?
i never said they have an a priori acceptance of Jesus' existence and you know it. I have insisted the opposite. I just quoted the purpose of the jesus seminar which mirrors what i have said about them elsewhere. They voted on the authenticity meaning they were trying to determine if it happened or not. Why would they even vote if they already believed it? They investigated the relevant texts and show absolutely no predilection to a non-existent Jesus. Furthermore, i never said that scholars debate the existence of Jesus. The reason why is because they have examined the evidence and there is no reason to doubt it. Misrepresenting what someone said is usually a sign that someone has reached the end of their ability to defend their position.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
trae, the more you post the more your credibility diminishes.
i don't know how much experience you have in forums like these but, these kinds of personal quips are usually a sign of obfuscation. Making them helps to hide a person's inadequacies in dealing with the issues being discussed.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Jesus' existence was not in question, however, the authenticity of the texts were
even though i've already shown how you are not exactly correct, my second point was that it doesn't matter. They are still free at any time to state Jesus didn't exist. They haven't.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Your selective perception knows no bounds, trae.
another personal quip and avoidance of my statement. If you compare the evidence of Jesus with evidence of any other person that history holds to be true, the evidence for Jesus' existence is reasonable. Throw out Jesus, and you might as well throw out julius caesar. I certainly hope you are aware of the comparitive paucity of evidence for one of the greatest figures of history that everyone believes existed. On caesar, the works of cicero and sallust are largely from the middle ages (and even later), have lacunae and show clear evidence of alteration. Do you believe caesar existed?
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Christians have a long history of bigotry, fundamentalism and genocide with much more to come as stated in their so-called prophetic end times scenario where 2/3rds of the human population (non-believers) will be wiped from the face of the earth. Nice God & religion you've got there.
first, you're defending your point by attacking someone else, which is a fallacy. Second, while there are christians who have done things in opposition to christian doctrine, you failed to elaborate on your assertion that christian interest groups and lobbyists are somehow coercing the worldwide community of historical experts to say they believe Jesus existed when they actually believe He didn't.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
I have already provided you with quotes from Christian NT scholars above that disagree with you.
and i have reminded you that ever since the first quest for the historical Jesus started with reimarus, scores of historical experts (even scholars who are hostile to christianity) acknowledge Jesus' existence. Not to mention christian scholars who do likewise. So, one of us is skewing the "quotes". The quotes you provided do nothing to say Jesus didn't exist. They merely say that gleaning information about a person from 2000 years ago is not an easy task. Of course there is little information from antiquity in comparison to later periods. That is a truism. What your quotes also don't address is how much more information there is for Jesus than even the most towering historical figures such as julius caesar.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Nope, you completely omitted the most relevant part:
Quote:
Jesus famed far and wide:
it seems that you don't know that "far and wide" is a relative term. your failure to incorporate the qualification into your points suggests disingenuous motives
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Sorry but, you are clearly unaware that NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism or the mythicist position in order to receive their Ph.D. So, expecting these scholars to know much about that subject is far beyond their realm of expertise.
merely repeating your prior statement doesn't address my response. The individual points of the "mythicist position" have already been addressed by christians. It's not like they aren't aware of them and can't respond to them.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
trae "the answer should be obvious. investigating the historical Jesus is somewhat of a hobby for me."
All I've seen so far is one who selectively only looks at one side of the debate in order to confirm what you already believe. You've never given any serious weight to the counter arguments have you?
Quote:
trae "this misconception lies at the heart of the matter. From their own forum:"
The misconception appears to be yours, trae, as the quotes you posted confirm what I've been telling you. They never set out to investigate whether Jesus existed or not - that was already an a priori accepted assumption so, they worked from there without ever substantiating Jesus' existence first. Jesus' existence was never in question BECAUSE IT'S ON SOLID GROUND - remember? so, you may stop attempting to make that false claim.
Lets have a look at the quotes you provided shall we:
"The Seminar's on-going project has been to evaluate the historical significance of every shred of evidence about Jesus from antiquity (about 30-200 CE)...The first phases of the Seminar's work on the evaluation & interpretation of Jesus tradition are complete & the results have been published."
As I read the entire page of the JS forum nowhere do they mention any sort of investigation into the existence of Jesus.
From wikipedia:
"The seminar uses votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of the deeds and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth...The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus...The fellows placed the burden of proof on those who advocate any passage's historicity...The scholars attending attempt to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus."
Again, this is all based on the investigation of the authenticity of the texts not of Jesus' existence.
trae, you consistently omit quotes, arguments and evidence that are inconvenient to your beliefs. At this point you're not even attempting to be honest about your own previous claims above saying scholars do not question the existence of Jesus because it's on SOLID GROUND. You seem to have a problem accepting even small facts such as about the Jesus Seminar, I can't imagine you ever conceding to facts and evidence that counter your Christian beliefs.
Quote:
trae "two things are important there. First, they are trying to reconstruct Jesus meaning, determine whether He actually existed or not."
You still don't understand the difference between an investigation for the authenticity of the texts as opposed to Jesus' existence. You are reading into the JS what you want to see even though it's just not there. When you don't see what you want, you just make it up however you wish. That is the definition of delusional:
If you're that delusional with minor facts regarding the Jesus Seminar just how delusional are you regarding the mountain of facts and evidence that counters your Christian beliefs on Jesus' existence and the bible in general?
Quote:
trae "i never said they have an a priori acceptance of Jesus' existence and you know it. I have insisted the opposite."
Your comments here throughout this thread suggest otherwise:
trae "the scholarly community is in almost unanimous agreement that there was a historical Jesus. even the liberal critics of the jesus seminar (second quest for the historical Jesus) agree that Jesus existed. gary habermas has all but shut the door on any doubt."
trae "even scholars who are the most critical of christianity acknowledge the historical Jesus. borg, crossan, mack, et al. if the most critical scholars are in agreement with christian scholars, then it's pretty much unanimous."
trae "again, the existence of the historical christ is on very solid ground. this point isn't even debated among the leading ancient historians. i myself have seen all of these people in scholastic and debate settings and there isn't mention of Jesus not existing."
Akhem, trae, claiming the existence of Jesus is no longer debated among scholars because "it's on solid ground" is another way of saying that they accept a priori that Jesus existed. You seem to be trying to claim that you didn't say what you've already said many times throughout this very thread. Why are you attempting so desperately to contradict yourself now? It's blatantly obvious that you are back-peddling hard and fast.
Quote:
trae "I just quoted the purpose of the jesus seminar which mirrors what i have said about them elsewhere."
You have been demonstrated to be wrong about the Jesus Seminar almost every step of the way.
Quote:
trae "If you compare the evidence of Jesus with evidence of any other person that history holds to be true, the evidence for Jesus' existence is reasonable. Throw out Jesus, and you might as well throw out julius caesar."
LOL, sounds like Christian apologist revisionism. The statement is utterly false. You ruin your own credibility by making such claims. You also haven't read the links I've been sharing with you, such as, Jesus Never Existed:
Quote:
Freethinkaluva22 wrote: Christians have a long history of bigotry, fundamentalism and genocide with much more to come as stated in their so-called prophetic end times scenario where 2/3rds of the human population (non-believers) will be wiped from the face of the earth. Nice God & religion you've got there.
trae "first, you're defending your point by attacking someone else, which is a fallacy. Second, while there are christians who have done things in opposition to christian doctrine, you failed to elaborate on your assertion that christian interest groups and lobbyists are somehow coercing the worldwide community of historical experts to say they believe Jesus existed when they actually believe He didn't."
Nope, first, I stated the facts which you concede. Those horrific acts were done in accordance with Christian doctrine. Even a former Pastor of 20 years has the integrity to admit as much:
Quote:
"The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus:
Plus, the fact that of the prophecies such as the 6th Trumpet - Revelation 9:13-15 the mass murder of 1/3rd of the worlds population (which will consist of all non-believers; sounds like a new, modern day Inquisition to me). Remember the apocalypse, Armageddon and the tribulation period? Remember how it says that the blood will be at the horses bridle at Revelation 14:20? And that man will become more scarce than gold at Isaiah 13:12? After all said and done 2/3rds of the human population will be destroyed.
So, your claim that Christians in the past did those things in opposition to Christian doctrine contradicts the facts, demonstrated by their own future prophecies as well. Christianity has already murdered around 250 MILLION people in its name with around 4 BILLION more to go. Your religion is a barbaric murderous CULT not worthy of worship of any kind - it belongs in the DARK AGES as well as all the other Abrahamic religions which are no better.
Nope, one of us can't handle the truth, trae. I don't need to "skew" anything.
Quote:
trae "The quotes you provided do nothing to say Jesus didn't exist."
You're finally correct on something. Those Christian scholars didn't address Jesus' existence BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ON SOLID GROUND, REMEMBER? However, even Christian scholars admit that sources for Jesus are "scanty and problematic" such as below:
Quote:
"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
- F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" (163) founder of the modern evangelical movement
- "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" (WWJ) page 84
This means that your claims that a HJ are on solid ground is just utter BS. I won't expect you or them to have the integrity to admit that though as you're all far too afraid to admit any such thing.
Quote:
trae "it seems that you don't know that "far and wide" is a relative term. your failure to incorporate the qualification into your points suggests disingenuous motives"
That comment smells like someone is doing everything they can to get out of addressing the issue at hand. Again, there are over 20 biblical scriptures (24) claiming that Jesus was famed far and wide yet, none have ever been substantiated with credible evidence.
Quote:
Jesus famed far and wide:
"These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the following:
- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ) by D. M. Murdock page 85
If you ever had any intention of being honest here you would have to admit that this point is quite valid, and you have no response. So, it would be a wise move for you to stop with the distraction fallacies and actually address the issues at hand rather than trying to hide from them.
Quote:
trae "The individual points of the "mythicist position" have already been addressed by christians. It's not like they aren't aware of them and can't respond to them."
If so, then, simply state the courses on mythology and astrotheology that are a requirement for New Testament students to get their Ph.D.? Name those books and authors which you claim have addressed the "individual points of the "mythicist position" too. Where's the credible evidence for the existence of Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon and Jesus? Where exactly do they address astrotheology?
It's okay to admit that you had absolutely no idea whatsoever that NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism, the mythicist position or astrotheology in order to receive their Ph.D.
Again, since you're the expert why don't you explain it to me? Lets have a little test, why don't you e-mail all the links, quotes & video I shared on mythicism and the mythicist position from my post above with scholars to get their feedback and have them explain precisely what studies on mythology are part of their required courses to get their Ph.D. then, share that feedback and info with us here.
You've never given any serious weight to the counter arguments have you?
I have already shown the ability to reproduce the positions of people who are hostile to christianity so the answer to your question is an obvious yes.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
you consistently omit quotes, arguments and evidence that are inconvenient to your beliefs.
I introduced the quotes from the source so I’m not omitting anything. The problem hinges on the interpretation of investigating the authenticity of the texts. First, they did not start with an a priori assumption of Jesus’ existence and I provided the burden of proof quote to prove it. second, if the texts were not “authentic”, they would have no reason to continue to write about Jesus’ existence. They could easily say He didn’t exist. They are under no obligation to support His existence whatsoever nor have you shown any such obligation nor have you yet addressed why belief in Jesus persists among those who are hostile to christianity other than the “priory of scion” like conspiracy theory. Even agnostic, Christian critic bart erhman believes there was a Jesus: “To understand Jesus' attitude toward himself, Ehrman argues, we must remember who he was: a radical millenarian Jew.” Bart erhman is allegedly the world’s leading authority on the historicity of Jesus although he recently got his butt kicked by dan wallace at the greer heard forum.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
claiming the existence of Jesus is no longer debated among scholars because "it's on solid ground" is another way of saying that they accept a priori that Jesus existed.
we’ll have to agree to disagree on that issue. the historical experts claim to be unbiased, impartial and objective in their acceptance of Jesus’ existence.
You state that Caesar has personal written documents and Jesus doesn’t. Do you know anything about caesar’s commentaries? 1. His authorship is a claim by Suetonius. That’s the only proof we have that he actually wrote them. and he didn’t even write all of them. how can we be sure he wrote any of them? we can’t. 2. They are basically journal entries during the gallic and civil wars. They do not tell us much, if anything about Caesar himself. Therefore, they really make no difference in determining if Caesar himself existed. They could have been chronicled by anyone referring to some other Caesar like person such as in the case of the Arthur legend. 3. There are clear signs of embellishment which further smears the credibility of the documents.
These are facts maintained by the academic community, not opinions. Therefore, the commentaries are completely unconvincing admissions into the record.
You state that caesar’s friends wrote about him during his lifetime but Jesus’ didn’t. there are only a handful of copies of the writings of Cicero and Sallust, they are from the middle ages, have lacunae and shows signs of editions by copyists. In comparison, there are at least 5000 greek manuscripts of the nt dating back to 150ad at the latest for the rylands fragment, even more in latin and Coptic and show a miniscule percentage of variants compared to the writings of Cicero and Sallust. By any historical standard, the accounts of Jesus are astronomically more conclusive for historicity. The difference between the size of an atom and the size of Jupiter.
As far as caesar’s enemies, they’re no more trustworthy or conclusive than the writings of Cicero and Sallust and extra biblical accounts of Jesus have been listed by the authors I’ve already mentioned.
First century Christians would be horrified if a sculpture or statue of Jesus were created so a bust of Caesar proves nothing in comparison to Jesus. The followers of Jesus were opposed to such things whereas roman culture celebrated such things. Jesus’ followers preserved His existence in other, no less palpable ways.
I’m sure you’re aware that catholics have for centuries claimed to have artifacts from Jesus’ life and crucifixion so the same for Caesar proves nothing.
Birthdate, date of death and last name come from historical sources. The historical sources are clearly in Jesus’ favor.
No matter how you slice it, the evidence is heavily, heavily in Jesus’ favor. It’s a monumental difference. Your use of the oversimplified chart is very subversive from a historiographical standpoint. It’s really more posturing than actual history.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
I stated the facts which you concede. Those horrific acts were done in accordance with Christian doctrine.
first, that’s not a fact. It’s an interpretation which makes it an opinion. Second, if you think those acts were done in accordance with christianity as opposed to political reasons, they you have completely misunderstood what you are criticizing. Third, you didn’t even address the fact that you are STILL defending yourself by attacking someone else. It’s a tactic to avoid detailing the conspiracy theory that Christians have somehow perpetuated among the worldwide academic community for the last couple of centuries.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6)
another look will help: “If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.” The key words being “as a branch” or “like a branch”. It’s not referring to burning people. Any basic commentary should help clear up that confusion. It’s exegesis 101.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Plus, the fact that of the prophecies such as the 6th Trumpet - Revelation 9:13-15 the mass murder of 1/3rd of the worlds population (which will consist of all non-believers; sounds like a new, modern day Inquisition to me).
so what would you suggest should happen to people who reject God?
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Christianity has already murdered around 250 MILLION people in its name with around 4 BILLION more to go.
christianity hasn’t murdered anyone. People murder people. They do so in contradiction to the teachings of the bible. Perhaps you’re unaware of the ten commandments. “you shall not murder”. There is nothing in the NT that advocates murder. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, not stab someone in the heart.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Your religion is a barbaric murderous CULT not worthy of worship of any kind - it belongs in the DARK AGES as well as all the other Abrahamic religions which are no better.
first, christianity is not what gets worship. Second, non abrahamic religions have issues too.
“Lord Avebury, patron of Angulimala the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy Organisation, was surprised to be told that nearly a fifth of all jailed Buddhists are held for sex crimes. He suggested many would be jail converts. ‘If you are on your own a lot and you have time to think about your life then meditation and Buddhist practice is a useful way not only of passing the time but coming to grips with things that are wrong in your life,’ he said.”
“David Wilson, a criminologist and former prison governor, said: ‘I know of no other part of society where one would encounter so many Buddhists as one would encounter if one walked into the average jail.’”
Either the above acts were committed in compliance with Hinduism and Buddhism or they were not. if they were, then those religions should be rejected because they belong in the dark ages as you say. If they were not, then people acted against their religious beliefs just like the Christians you so harshly criticize. Atheists don’t want to claim Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair or stalin or pol pot. So, all worldviews have these kinds of problems which means we should dispense with the immature finger pointing and name calling and address the merits of worldviews themselves.
Furthermore, the amount of good done by Christians is incalculable compared to the bad. Yet, this always gets overlooked by critics of christianity. After 9/11 and hurricane Katrina, scores of Christian groups descended on those places to offer humanitarian aid. Tens of thousands of people left their homes and jobs just to serve others. Is the same true of atheists, muslims, hindus, Buddhists, etc? absolutely not.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Your naivete can be cured by actually reading books which expose that info such as the one I already mentioned
you don’t know what I’ve read and what I haven’t. the fact that you continue with these personal kinds of statements suggests that you’ve reached the end of your ability to substantiate your position.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
even Christian scholars admit that sources for Jesus are "scanty and problematic" such as - F.F. Bruce
do you know anything about f. f. bruce? He spent his entire career showing that the NT was historically accurate, including the accounts of Jesus. What you are doing is called “quote mining”. You have completely misrepresented his position (possibly even his whole life) with this one quote. You haven’t even bothered to get educated to correct this because you keep citing the quote.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
If so, then, simply state the courses on mythology and astrotheology that are a requirement for New Testament students to get their Ph.D.?
perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant when I said they might not be addressing the “mythicist position” formally but, they do understand the particulars.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Name those books and authors which you claim have addressed the "individual points of the "mythicist position" too.
I have already stated that when someone like habermas cites historical manuscripts that refer to Jesus or followers of Jesus, he is implicitly opposing the idea that Jesus didn’t exist. N. t. wright makes the monumental case that the birth and diaspora of christianity make absolutely no sense sans the real, historical resurrection of Jesus.
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:24 pm Posts: 4333 Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
trae "I have already shown the ability to reproduce the positions of people who are hostile to christianity so the answer to your question is an obvious yes. "
No, all you've done is reproduce Christian apologist talking points, tactics and revisionism, which we're fully aware of here as many of us here are e-Xians or other ex-devotees.
Quote:
trae "First, they did not start with an a priori assumption of Jesus’ existence and I provided the burden of proof quote to prove it."
If you really believe that you've provided any sort of burden of proof then, you really are delusional.
Quote:
trae "second, if the texts were not “authentic”, they would have no reason to continue to write about Jesus’ existence."
Prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.
Quote:
The Canon: A Second-Century Composition
"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.
"The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:
1. Ur-Markus (150) 2. Ur-Lukas (150+) 3. Luke (170) 4. Mark (175) 5. John (178) 6. Matthew (180)
"To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts...."
- "Who Was Jesus?" pages 82-83
Quote:
trae "They are under no obligation to support His existence whatsoever nor have you shown any such obligation nor have you yet addressed why belief in Jesus persists among those who are hostile to christianity"
I haven't because it's really beyond the scope of this thread. Plus, I feel like I've wasted enough time on you already, frankly. Nevertheless, I'll share just a couple issues to prove you wrong, once again.
"Why is it that no individual scholar or group of scholars has undertaken a concerted effort in recent times to discredit the mythicist position? (The brief addresses that have been made to it in various publications are outlined in my Main Article "Postscript".) In the heyday of the great mythicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a few valiant efforts were offered. However, both mainstream scholarship and the mythicist branch itself have made dramatic leaps since then. Biblical research has moved into bold new territory in the last several decades: unearthing a wealth of ancient documents, arriving at a new understanding of elements like Q, the sectarian nature of early Christianity, the Cynic roots of the great Gospel teachings, and so on; an almost unprecedented "critical" dimension to New Testament scholarship has emerged.
And yet the mythicist position continues to be vilified, disdained, dismissed. We would condemn any physicist, any anthropologist, any linguist, any mathematician, any scholar of any sort who professes to work in a field that makes even a partial bow to principles of logic and scientific research who yet ignored, reviled, condemned largely without examination a legitimate, persistent theory in his or her discipline. There are tremendous problems in New Testament research, problems that have been grappled with for generations and show no sign of getting closer to solution. Agreement is lacking on countless topics, and yesterday's theories are being continually overturned. There is almost a civil war going on within the ranks of Jesus study. Why not give the mythicist option some serious consideration? Why not honestly evaluate it to see if it could provide some of the missing answers? Or, if it turns out that the case is fatally flawed, then put it to rest once and for all.
Doing that would require one essential thing: taking it seriously, approaching the subject having an open mind that the theory might have some merit. Sadly, that is the most difficult step and the one which most critics have had the greatest difficulty taking. It is all in the mindset, whether of the Christian believer whose confessional interests are overriding, or of the professional scholar who could never consider that their life's work might be fatally compromised."
trae "Even agnostic, Christian critic bart erhman believes there was a Jesus..."
I am not impressed by Bart Ehrman.
Quote:
trae "You state that Caesar has personal written documents and Jesus doesn’t"
Just STOP, you've already ruined your credibility on that issue. You risk digging a deeper hole for yourself. I will not waste any more time with you on that issue. The only issue you must address is the fact that we have no credible evidence of Jesus.
Quote:
trae "In comparison, there are at least 5000 greek manuscripts of the nt dating back to 150ad at the latest for the rylands fragment, even more in latin and Coptic and show a miniscule percentage of variants compared to the writings of Cicero and Sallust. By any historical standard, the accounts of Jesus are astronomically more conclusive for historicity. The difference between the size of an atom and the size of Jupiter."
Comments like the above only confirm how delusional and biased you really are. Your motives as a Christian apologist here only out to shore-up your faith at all costs are as transparent as glass for all to see.
Quote:
The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, remarks:
"The NT [New Testament] is now known, in whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS [manuscripts] alone. Every one of these handwritten copies differs from every other one ... It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform."
"...Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons… It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading."
- WWJ 48
* The IDB is a conservative Christian authority "Text, NT," v. 4; 594-595.
Quote:
"Rylands fragment" or P52, which contains several dozen letters scattered across four verses of John's gospel (18:31-33). The presumed dating of P52 to the first half of the second century has been called "sensational" and seems untenable. - WWJ 68
Quote:
"...paleographical study published in the Archiv für Papyrusforschung 35 (1989), German scholar Andreas Schmidt suggested a date for P52 of 170 AD/CE +/- 25 years." - WWJ 69
Quote:
"New Testament professor and Christian manuscript expert Dr. Larry Hurtado states:
"...because paleographical dating can rarely be more precise than +/- 25 to 50 years, the proposed dating of many manuscripts will lie across two centuries (e.g., second/third century CE)." - WWJ 69
Quote:
trae "first, that’s not a fact."
Too late trae, you've already conceded "while there are Christians who have done things," are you now trying to back-peddle on that too? same as your HJ is "on solid ground"? Are you really going to try to argue that the crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts and dark ages didn't exist? Add all that into your delusional bucket. Your bucket grows larger everytime you post.
Quote:
trae "It’s a tactic to avoid detailing the conspiracy theory that Christians have somehow perpetuated among the worldwide academic community for the last couple of centuries."
That's another straw man argument as I didn't actually make that claim, YOU DID. And here you are trying to put words in my mouth. However, I already addressed the relevant parts of it, which you obviously omitted as per usual.
Quote:
trae "another look will help: “If anyone does not remain in Me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.” The key words being “as a branch” or “like a branch”. It’s not referring to burning people. Any basic commentary should help clear up that confusion. It’s exegesis 101."
Thank you for another blatantly obvious display of your utter dishonesty and delusion. You really think I'm stupid enough to think that your New International version changed anything? It's very insulting. "exegesis 101" ??? How arrogant and conceited can you get, trae? You're embarrassing yourself here and insulting my intelligence.
I shared the King James Version however, the Revised Standard Version is known as the most accurate translation and it says:
John 15:6 "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."
Almost the same, nevertheless, you still glossed over the fact that the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus at John 15:6. There is no way for you to change that fact. Your distraction tactics do not work here.
Quote:
trae "so what would you suggest should happen to people who reject God?"
Nothing! There exists no legitimate reason to believe in any god. If a god exists, then, he/she should understand that. God could easily show himself to entire world by simply being on the evening news to select a specific religion and denomination and a political party and an assortment of sport teams - then we would finally have something interesting to discuss. Nobody should ever have hell held over their head with such petty holy texts and no credible evidence.
Quote:
trae "christianity hasn’t murdered anyone. People murder people. They do so in contradiction to the teachings of the bible. Perhaps you’re unaware of the ten commandments. “you shall not murder”. There is nothing in the NT that advocates murder. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, not stab someone in the heart."
Utterly false but no surprise coming from a Christian apologist who specializes in revisionism and shoring-up your faith at all costs. The ideology of Christianity is responsible for the murder of around 250 million people. The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus at John 15:6.
Plus, the fact that of the prophecies such as the 6th Trumpet - Revelation 9:13-15 the mass murder of 1/3rd of the worlds population (which will consist of all non-believers; sounds like a new, modern day Inquisition to me). Remember the apocalypse, Armageddon and the tribulation period? Remember how it says that the blood will be at the horses bridle at Revelation 14:20? And that man will become more scarce than gold at Isaiah 13:12? After all said and done 2/3rds of the human population will be destroyed.
So, your claim that Christians in the past did those things in opposition to Christian doctrine contradicts the facts, demonstrated by their own future prophecies as well. Christianity has already murdered around 250 MILLION people in its name with around 4 BILLION more to go. Your religion is a barbaric murderous CULT not worthy of worship of any kind - it belongs in the DARK AGES as well as all the other Abrahamic religions which are no better.
Rev 6:4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
1 Thess 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
Zachariah 14:4 "And this is the plague that God shall pour out on every nation that comes to fight against Jerusalem. That their flesh shall consume away while they stand on their feet. Their eyes shall be consumed in their sockets. And their tongue shall be consumed in the mouth."
Pastor John Hagee: "Zachariah the 14th chapter in the fourth verse. The Bible says, "And this is the plague that God shall pour out on every nation that comes to fight against Jerusalem. That their flesh shall consume away while they stand on their feet. Their eyes shall be consumed in their sockets. And their tongue shall be consumed in the mouth.
That is a perfect picture of what happens to the human body in a nuclear blast. If you saw the videos of Hiroshima, that`s exactly what happened. The H-bomb can produce heat of 150 million degrees Fahrenheit in a millisecond. And that`s why the flesh can melt off of the body before your body can hit the ground. But it`s a perfect description of nuclear warfare. "
So, once again, other Christians and even the bible itself disagree with you, trae.
Quote:
trae "first, christianity is not what gets worship."
Okay, Your God is a barbaric murderer not worthy of worship of any kind - Christianity belongs in the DARK AGES as well as all the other Abrahamic religions which are no better.
Quote:
trae "Second, non abrahamic religions have issues too."
Yes, they do but not as bad as the Abrahamic religions. Still, two wrongs don't make a right and your comment is just another distraction fallacy. We expose the worst of religion here of all stripes and the Abrahamic cults are the worst by far. So, rather than attempt to point fingers elsewhere you need to keep an eye on your own back yard. The only thing you need to provide in this thread is credible evidence for the existence of a HJ.
Quote:
trae "Furthermore, the amount of good done by Christians is incalculable compared to the bad. Yet, this always gets overlooked by critics of christianity. After 9/11 and hurricane Katrina, scores of Christian groups descended on those places to offer humanitarian aid. Tens of thousands of people left their homes and jobs just to serve others. Is the same true of atheists, muslims, hindus, Buddhists, etc? absolutely not."
Your Christian revisionism is spewing out again, you are confused, it's human nature to help others - we do not need Christianity for that. And, you are absolutely WRONG when you attempt to claim "atheists, muslims, hindus, Buddhists" don't help in exactly the same way.
The most atheistic countries are well known for donating the most to others in need. And studies show that the more atheistic a country is the more peaceful it is likely to be. In fact, currently the USA ranks 85th on the Global peace index (GPI) 85th is an embarrassment.
'Atheist' Nations Are More Peaceful
So, while studies show that atheists are more generous and more peaceful, what do they get for it? DISCRIMINATION:
University of Minnesota 2006 Study: Atheists Most Discriminated Minority
"Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."
Quote:
trae "do you know anything about f. f. bruce? He spent his entire career showing that the NT was historically accurate, including the accounts of Jesus. What you are doing is called “quote mining”.
I don't need to quote-mine, he made the comment in his own book. However, we already know his position on the HJ so, don't get your shorts in a bunch. Bruce does the same thing the other NT Christian scholars do - they admit the evidence is scanty and problematic yet, still go on to claim that they believe in a HJ because there's so much evidence ... which they never quite provide.
As described on page 112 in Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ:
Quote:
"...Christian scholars and apologists also make statements such as those of F.F. Bruce:
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a "Christ myth," but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the "Christ-myth" theories."1
"After investigating these purported evidences from Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus, however, Bruce further acknowledges, "We are thus thrown back on the New Testament writings as our primary documents,"2 evincing that the New Testament itself constitutes "well-tested… source-material." Yet, in a footnote to these remarks, Bruce further comments:
"The NT writings were not, of course, designed as historians' source-material, and apart from Luke-Acts are not written in historiographical style…"
"Hence, while admitting that there is no historical evidence for the life of Christ, and noting that the gospels themselves were not "designed as historians' source materials," Bruce nevertheless dismisses the rational deduction that Christ himself may not be historical, going so far as to imply that anyone who comes to such a conclusion cannot be considered a historian—despite the fact that there is essentially no history to go on! To put it another way, after discovering that there is basically no historical evidence for Jesus, with not even the gospels serving as "historian's source-material," it is asserted that no "unbiased historian" can reach the conclusion that Christ may be non-historical. In dealing with the investigation of a "historical" Jesus, then, we are faced with a hopeless and absurd Catch-22.
In reality, the puzzling and embarrassing deficiency of historical and archaeological evidence for the greatest man who ever lived and who was famed far and wide has made many people wonder about the story itself, causing them to doubt the most fantastic elements, including the bulk of Christ's signs of divinity. In order to add to our picture of who Jesus was, we will therefore need to inquire elsewhere, in light of this paucity of data, keeping in mind that, again, we cannot afford to avoid disquieting conclusions in our quest for truth.
- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ, page 112-113
trae "perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant when I said they might not be addressing the “mythicist position” formally but, they do understand the particulars."
Believe it or not, I did understand. You are simply distracting away from the issue at hand once again - I think I detect a pattern here. My original comment was:
...NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism or the mythicist position in order to receive their Ph.D.
Which you never did acknowledge. Probably because you had no idea. Your first response was:
"i see where this is coming from. you have a pet theory that you want to get into the mainstream, perhaps for political or monetary reasons. well, best of luck to you in your endeavor."
So, you hypocritically attack me personally by accusing me of a pet theory with political and monetary reasons rather than acknowledge what I actually said. Your strategy has been to deflect away from what I've actually said. It's probably best for you just not to even bring it up at all if you're not going to respond to what I actually said.
Quote:
trae "I have already stated that when someone like habermas cites historical manuscripts that refer to Jesus or followers of Jesus, he is implicitly opposing the idea that Jesus didn’t exist..."
Okay, so you're assuming that just because Habermas claims to cite evidence for a HJ that he doesn't need to know anything about the case for mythicism by default. Which, in no way means he knows much about mythology, astrotheology, the case for mythicism or the points made in the mythicist position. Here's where, if you were honest, you'd just admit that it's possible that he's not an expert on mythology, astrotheology or the case for mythicism.
Lets have a little test, why don't you e-mail Habermas and have him explain precisely what studies on mythology, astrotheology and the case for mythicism are part of required courses in order for NT scholars to get their Ph.D.?
"you say that christianity is a copy of buddhism. well, buddhism is a copy of hinduism. my point is that where you see similarities, those are universal themes. it doesn't mean that christianity isn't unique or copied something else. "
Buddhism is a reformation of "Hinduism" just as Christianity is a reformation on Jewish thought.
You write " the writings of the new testament are thoroughly judaism"
How is that? The figure of Jesus openly rejects the God of Moses (John 6:32) and in several gospels we find Jesus say "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye...', but I tell you..." If Jesus believed in a Jewish God he would have said "You have heard that My father commanded to Moses an eye for an eye..."
You wrote: "no evidence that i am aware of that late first century, early second century judeans had any contact whatsoever with the far east. how could they have copied ancient sanskrit manuscripts? they had no access to them."
The oldest Buddhist MSS in the Kharosthi script where found in Afghanistan and are dated to this time, this is the same place that Apollonius traveled. The Philologist Max Muller stated, in regards to Christianity lifting from Buddhism (which he later agreed to), " I would be delighted if anyone could point to me the historical channels by which Buddhism could have come to influence Christianity"
This shows that his Christian faith still had a hold on him as it has been shown that not only are there rock inscriptions of Buddhists in Athens (some believe Paul mentions them) but also Alexander of Makadonia tried to blend all thought systems, but also his generals who took command after his death (Ptolemy II funded the Essenes. Asoka claims he was Buddhist) up to the Breco-Buddhist king Manender and the fall of the Bactrian empire. This synchronism also reached the Jews as there are several petty Jewish reformer kings who have Greek names and Buddhist symbols on their coins (Alexander Jannaeus, widow's mite spoken of by the Jesus figure)
Since what is historical can never be for certain I would argue that if there was a historical Jesus that comes close to where the four gospels agree, this figure is wholly unoriginal and has said or done nothing that has not been said or done before by the Buddhists. Sir William Jones tried to explain this to Christian missionaries in Asia when he quotes the Buddha
" Just as the sandalwood tree releases a sweet smell on the ax that fells it, so to should one forgive their executioner"
If you really believe that you've provided any sort of burden of proof then, you really are delusional.
What I said was that I provided a quote about the burden of proof statement from the jesus seminar. It clearly shows that they did not start with an a priori assumption of Jesus’ existence despite what you say about them.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Just STOP, you've already ruined your credibility on that issue. You risk digging a deeper hole for yourself. I will not waste any more time with you on that issue.
you can’t respond to the historical analysis. That’s all you had to say.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Comments like the above only confirm how delusional and biased you really are. Your motives as a Christian apologist here only out to shore-up your faith at all costs are as transparent as glass for all to see.
you have no response for the specifics. That’s all you had to say.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Every one of these handwritten copies differs from every other one ... It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform."
you might not be aware of this but, that amount of variants affects less than 1% of the meaning of the text among all the available manuscripts. That is absolutely astonishing. Centuries of copying all over the ancient and medieval world and there is basically no change in the meaning. That is unbelievable proof of the fidelity of the transmission. It shows the level of scrutiny that went into the copying process. Furthermore, even the scant few instances where the meaning is affected don’t make a significant difference in the overall scheme of things. There just aren’t any other ancient manuscripts that can even come close to that level of accuracy. It overwhelmingly shows we can trust the historicity of the documents, including the accounts of Jesus. from a historiographical perspective, that is nothing short of a miracle.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
"...Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons… It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading."
in the world of textual criticism, this is clearly a provocative quote. Everyone knows that language changes over time. The spelling of a word might change or the meaning of a sentence might change. Copyists had to adjust to these language changes so that people could understand what the text meant in their own language. It doesn’t mean the copyist changed the meaning of the previous texts. Additionally, you wouldn’t even be able to make that quote if we didn’t know these instances which means we can see the translation process take place over time. Consequently, the meaning is not lost. We can see how these changes evolved and how they relate to older copies.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
"Rylands fragment" or P52, which contains several dozen letters scattered across four verses of John's gospel (18:31-33). The presumed dating of P52 to the first half of the second century has been called "sensational" and seems untenable.
that, and the other thousands of manuscripts, are still immeasurably better than anything we have for Caesar. Regardless, the date is pretty solid.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Too late trae, you've already conceded "while there are Christians who have done things," are you now trying to back-peddle on that too?
you missed the point. All religions have people who do bad things. Since that’s the case, discussing the individuals isn’t helpful. The worldview itself is what is paramount.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
That's another straw man argument as I didn't actually make that claim, YOU DID. And here you are trying to put words in my mouth. However, I already addressed the relevant parts of it, which you obviously omitted as per usual.
here’s the quote from you:
“Christian special interest and lobbyist groups play an important role enabling academia to continue on with this fraud of claiming the case for Jesus is solid.”
you haven’t explained how belief in Jesus’ existence persists among scholars who are hostile to christianity other than this vague reference to a conspiracy.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
nevertheless, you still glossed over the fact that the burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of Jesus at John 15:6.
it was MISTAKENLY based on that passage. Anyone who can read the rest of the NT should know that such an interpretation is unwarranted because it is completely out of character with the rest of the NT.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
There exists no legitimate reason to believe in any god.
the problem with this statement is that it mistakenly assumes that naturalism is all there is. No person is able to substantiate such a statement. In other words, no one is able to prove that there is nothing supernatural or that God does not exist. Furthermore, science (the tool of naturalism) cannot explain things we know to be true such as intentionality, motivation, perception, qualia, morality, origin, purpose, destiny, etc.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
God could easily show himself to entire world by simply being on the evening news to select a specific religion and denomination and a political party and an assortment of sport teams
first, some people would still be angry at God. Second, how often is God supposed to appear to people? Third, some people would not be convinced by that type of evidence. The point is that nontheists always come up with these ridiculous types of scenarios but they can never justify why or how it's better than the amount of general and specific revelation we already have.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Nobody should ever have hell held over their head
hell is not being held over anyone's head. Hell is literally separation from God. It's a choice of the individual and God honors that choice which is the just thing to do. Otherwise, our freedom is a sham.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Utterly false
so the bible does not say “you shall not murder” or “if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also”? so, when Christians act immorally, they are doing so in accordance with these two passages?
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Yes, they do but not as bad as the Abrahamic religions.
what standard are you using to make such an extrapolation? How many did stalin and pol pot kill in logical outworkings of atheism? At least christianity doesn’t approve of the mistakes Christians make. Stalin was perfectly justified in his actions. Hindus justify the crimes I cited. I don’t hear Buddhists crying out about the crimes I cited. In what way is christianity worse?
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Your Christian revisionism is spewing out again, you are confused, it's human nature to help others - we do not need Christianity for that.
it is not uncommon for hindus to not help other hindus in need because of the belief that the suffering person is serving out a karmic punishment. Helping them would interfere with their improvement in the next incarnation. Many, many people have come back from india recounting this phenomenon. Furthemore, followers of Christ who help out after the Indonesian tsunami, Haitian earthquake, etc do so in the name of Jesus Christ, not the name of humanism.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
And, you are absolutely WRONG when you attempt to claim "atheists, muslims, hindus, Buddhists" don't help in exactly the same way.
I personally have not heard that those groups perform the kinds of service that Christians do. even if they do, it’s miniscule compared to what Christians do. It’s irrelevant anyway. People of those belief systems are equally justified serving others or not. on the other hand, followers of Christ help others because of the example of Christ, not out of obligation or a nebulous affinity for mankind. In a non-christian worldview, altruism makes no sense.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
The most atheistic countries are well known for donating the most to others in need. And studies show that the more atheistic a country is the more peaceful it is likely to be.
you’re still missing the point. Nothing from that handful of atheists can atone for what stalin and pol pot did in the name of atheism. Remember, madalyn murray o’hair is equally as justified in her actions as any of those “peaceful” atheists you’re citing.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Bruce does the same thing the other NT Christian scholars do - they admit the evidence is scanty and problematic
you’re still overlooking that ANYTHING from antiquity is scanty and problematic. When comparing what we know of Jesus to what we know of other figures from history that are accepted as factual, the evidence for Jesus is quite reasonable.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
yet, still go on to claim that they believe in a HJ because there's so much evidence ... which they never quite provide.
continually repeating this doesn’t make habermas’ opus disappear. It’s all there for anyone to read for themselves.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
...NT scholars are not required to study the case for mythicism or the mythicist position in order to receive their Ph.D.
I’ll put it another way. yes they are required to know these things, they just don’t call it the “mythicist position”.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Okay, so you're assuming that just because Habermas claims to cite evidence for a HJ that he doesn't need to know anything about the case for mythicist by default.
first, he doesn’t claim to cite evidence. He actually does cite widely accepted evidence. Evidence accepted even by scholars who are not Christians. Second, your claim is that the mythicist position says that there is no evidence for Jesus’ existence. If his claim is the opposite, then he implicitly knows that part of the mythicist position which means he indeed did have to study it to be able to counter it.
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
he's not an expert on mythology, astrotheology or the case for mythicism.
Christian apologists are certainly aware of these. All worldviews fall under two categories; nontheism and theism. Seminaries not only teach this but, they also teach the variations on them which includes the ideas that some people call "astrotheology" and "mythicism".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
