They weren't mystical. They were religious, but the gospels still fall into a historical genre as far as ancient history is concerned. There is no doubt that they contain myth, and that they are far from 100% accurate, and they are certainly not carefully researched unbiased historical accounts. But they were written nearly 2000 years ago, while your unresearched and ahistorical approach to ancient Judaism occurs in the 21st century, where such methodology should be seen as anything but careful and informed scholarship.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Flavius Josephus About Jesus?
- Thread starter Ben Masada
- Start date
They weren't mystical. They were religious, but the gospels still fall into a historical genre as far as ancient history is concerned. There is no doubt that they contain myth, and that they are far from 100% accurate, and they are certainly not carefully researched unbiased historical accounts. But they were written nearly 2000 years ago, while your unresearched and ahistorical approach to ancient Judaism occurs in the 21st century, where such methodology should be seen as anything but careful and informed scholarship.
There have been few comments you have made which reveal how little you know of Jesus' culture. No one had last names in the way that we do. Some people had "surnames" which indicated their family or parentage. Others had nicknames, titles, or were identified by kin, marriage, or place of origin. Sometimes, these methods were mixed. Jesus, for example, is identified by the title Christ and the place of origin Nazareth.
No, they don't. We have no evidence of 99% of the people from Jesus' day. Almost everyone from ancient history has vanished without a trace. However, with Jesus, we have four biographies (lives), at least one reference by the historian Josephus, numerous epistles, all within a lifetime or two of Jesus mission.
Which would mean you would have to have examined the NT. And there are plenty of OT references. Some are "created" from the NT. Others (such as John the Baptists lifestyle) were historical events modelled on OT examples. And most of it is NOT based on the NT. Most of Jesus' life and teachings are not based on the OT.
I look forward to you failing to adequately respond to the others.
, number 5, virgin birth stories, Herod's killing of the innocents borrowed from that other non-fiction account of Moses's birth.If those aren't pure fiction, what is?
Again, your failure to understand the genre of ancient history is your undoing. There are plenty of myths and magic and miracles and rumor in Herodotus, Livy, Diogenes, Philostratus, and so forth. Yet we sift through all of these accounts for historical data. The gospels DO contain what is clearly unhistorical data. Yet if the existence of such data in a historical work is enough to disqualify it from being taken seriously AT ALL, then every single history from the ancient world should be disqualified.
Have you spent much time reading greek or latin histories or biographies? You consider a text which contains things like miracles and virgin births to be completely worthless historically. But that is virtually every historical text we have. So according to your criterion, all of it should be thrown out the window. As for such data precluding a figure for historicity, the emperor Augustus was said, in his biography, to be born of a god. Is he historical?
I'm not the one going into this topic having read only sensationalist books by non-experts, and a few non-academic works by scholars in related fields. I'm also not the one commenting on what consitutes "history" in the ancient world without having read extensively in this genre. You are the one coming at this topic with preconceived views, which explains why you are so adament about your position without having done the research, and having clearly demonstrated a lack of knowledge of both the period, the texts, the scholarship, and pretty much all the relevant data.
IF_u_knew
Curious
We even have coins with images of Augustus .. albeit, I am sure Oberon will be quick to point out that this is not nearly as concrete as the evidence there is of the christian's version of Jesus. Just saying .... :yes:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Oberon comparing Caesar to Jesus is like comparing Queen Elizabeth to Harry Potter.
----------------
Consider what we have for Caesar. In 47 B.C. coins were struck by the government of Antioch (which Caesar had just liberated from Pompey) declaring it to be "year two of the era of Caesar." Cicero's letters confirm that Caesar's conquest of the Roman Empire began in 49 B.C., two years before this coin was struck. This is corroborating physical evidence. Comparably, if we had coins struck in Damascus in 33 A.D. declaring "year two of the era of Jesus Christ," that would be physical evidence corroborating the resurrection of Jesus.
We have other coins struck by Caesar himself during the war to pay his soldiers, then coins struck celebrating Caesar's victory over Rome (and then coins struck by Brutus celebrating his assassination of Caesar). In a similar fashion, inscriptions document Caesar's victory over Rome, his capture of Italy, and his founding of colonies for veterans of the war there. We could certainly have had similar inscriptions by or about Jesus erected during his life, or shortly thereafter, documenting his miracles in life or appearances after death, or the subsequent commitments of the Church, and so on. But we don't.
The Rubicon Analogy in Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Most assuredly. Here's some lines taken from Psalm 22. I don't have to tell you where they can be found in the gospel storyline:
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
...
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
...
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing. Psalm 69:
Insults have broken my heart, so that I am in despair. I looked for pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Amos 8:
8 "Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? ... 9 "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.
Ezekiel 37:
12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the LORD, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the LORD have spoken, and I have done it, declares the LORD.' "
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
By the way, these lines taken from the OT shatter Oberon's number 3,
" Despite the fact that NO myth from the ancient world was based around a figure living WITHIN a lifetime of the myth's composition (i.e. Mark) and the gospels have numerous time been compared to graeco-roman biography, you imagine that Mark is pure fiction."
In addition to this, because Mark was written within a supposed lifetime, Oberon has repeatedly claimed that people would read this and know that it was based on a real person. Well, one would think that if this well known Jesus was really crucified in a relatively recent past, the author would not have to resort to borrowing from the OT in order to describe the event. If the people did check the facts they would immediately recognize the borrowed poetry with virtually nothing left over, nothing original. It was obviously recognized by religious leaders of the time as a theology, not an historical document as Oberon claims.
Gentiles eventually did accept these gospels as actual events but not of any significant numbers to effect Christianity as a whole until the end of the second century, and these gentiles were far removed from Jewish roots.
" Despite the fact that NO myth from the ancient world was based around a figure living WITHIN a lifetime of the myth's composition (i.e. Mark) and the gospels have numerous time been compared to graeco-roman biography, you imagine that Mark is pure fiction."
In addition to this, because Mark was written within a supposed lifetime, Oberon has repeatedly claimed that people would read this and know that it was based on a real person. Well, one would think that if this well known Jesus was really crucified in a relatively recent past, the author would not have to resort to borrowing from the OT in order to describe the event. If the people did check the facts they would immediately recognize the borrowed poetry with virtually nothing left over, nothing original. It was obviously recognized by religious leaders of the time as a theology, not an historical document as Oberon claims.
Gentiles eventually did accept these gospels as actual events but not of any significant numbers to effect Christianity as a whole until the end of the second century, and these gentiles were far removed from Jewish roots.
Last edited:
One could easily poke holes in all the evidence using the same methods as with Jesus. For example, there are textual issues with Cicero's letters. Coins had images of deities too, so having a coin with Caesar means nothing. There were so many people named caesar, perhaps the first one was just a mythic originator, like Romulus. Caesar was said to be born from a god, so he must just be one of thos mythic "son's of god" figures. And so forth.
Of course, all of these arguments are ridiculous. But then, they are just silly when used against a historical Jesus.
And although we have all of the evidence you mention for Caesar, my point was just that: here we have a historical figure, which you don't doubt, yet who was said to be a son of a god, and legends were told about him. Therefore, myths such as being the son of a god CAN indeed grow around a historical person.
I am of the opinion that Jesus never uttered these words on the cross, but not because they were taken from scripture. You are talking about a 1st century Jew. Of course he would quote from scripture and model his actions and teachings on scripture in MANY ways. John the Baptist lived in the desert on honey and locusts, exactly modelling his behavior on the OT. Yet Josephus has more on him than on Jesus, so he is historical as well, despite the fact that so much of what is said about him in the gospels is clearly "based on the OT." All Jews of Jesus day, and before and after, based lives, words, deeds, and so forth on the scriptures. Why on earth is that an argument against historicity?
Very weak argument, as expected.
1. Just because a certain words or actions of Jesus are modelled on the OT, does not mean those words or actions aren't historical. Jesus was Jewish.
2. Of course the early christians, who believed Jesus was the Jewish messiah, would search through scriptures trying to find ways to show this, and the continuity between Jesus and scriptures, and add references or shape events or make comments based on the OT.
3. In histories which mention or are about emperors and leaders in the graeco-roman world, these figures are compared to the legends of myth. Yet they too were historical.
Completely false. Most of Jesus' sayings, and most of the gospels, are NOT at all borrowed from the OT.
Of a genre which did not exist. Nobody would view the gospels as theology. Jewish theology did not make a story out of the mission of prophets who were not considered historical. The story in Mark would appear to be like stories of John the Baptist and earlier prophets in many ways, and therefore would ABSOLUTELY be taken as history.
Wrong again. As you would know, had you studied this area, gentiles were involved in the synagogues even PRIOR to Jesus. They were interacting with Jews, worshipping the Jewish god, as gentiles. It was here that the first interactions started, at the earliest stages (as we know from Paul and acts). The whole of the NT is written in Greek. Of course there were plenty of gentiles. The christians were well known enough within about 3 decades from Jesus' mission to be blamed by the emperor Nero for his fire.
Last edited:
Gotta love these one liners that are devoid of any substance from one who has done no research apart from a few websites and reading a book on Jesus by a guy with a bachelor's in psychology.
The assumptions that must be made are:
1. Sects and cults (both the more scientific definition of cult and the popular derogatory one) work in general as sociological research into such groups has shown.
2. Ancient historical texts, from Herodotus to Plutarch DO NOT resemble modern ones, and always have problems, but this does not bar us from extrapolating historical data from them.
After that, it is all a matter of research into the culture of first century palestine, the culture, beliefs, and practices of 2nd temple judaism, the roman empire in the first century, the genre and nature of texts both in the judaic and graeco-roman world, the nature of our sources (both their problems and their strengths), and so forth. This has all been done in spades for over 200 years, and always the same answer from experts, whether Jewish, christian, agnostic, etc, is given: there is more than enough evidence to know with as much certainty as is possible for ancient figures that Jesus existed, had followers, and was executed in the first half of the first century. There are many other things which most would agree on, but the bare basics are agreed on by all experts with relevant degrees or even close to relevant, with the exception of Price and Carrier (who have close to relevant specialties).
There is no way to account for the early date, distribution, genre, and contents of Mark, let alone Josephus, Paul, and the other gospels, without a historical founder.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
"Completely false. Most of Jesus' sayings, and most of the gospels, are NOT at all borrowed from the OT."
Again, your comprehension skills are lacking. I was referring to the crucifixion and that much was clear. The fact that such an event was almost entirely taken from the OT leads us to conclude that something other than an actual event is taking place, or is being described here. There is a literary process involved that expresses certain truths to a Jewish audience of the time, truths found in ancient scripture reconfigured to reflect the present. Between all four gospel writers one would expect four different viewpoints, but we don't get that, it appears the writers are working and reworking a theology, one that suits their target audience.If there was an historical Jesus he's hard to find from reading these texts. Gospel authors writing at the end of the century placed Jesus in Paul's recent past but we have yet to find valid evidence to support this.
Again, your comprehension skills are lacking. I was referring to the crucifixion and that much was clear. The fact that such an event was almost entirely taken from the OT leads us to conclude that something other than an actual event is taking place, or is being described here. There is a literary process involved that expresses certain truths to a Jewish audience of the time, truths found in ancient scripture reconfigured to reflect the present. Between all four gospel writers one would expect four different viewpoints, but we don't get that, it appears the writers are working and reworking a theology, one that suits their target audience.If there was an historical Jesus he's hard to find from reading these texts. Gospel authors writing at the end of the century placed Jesus in Paul's recent past but we have yet to find valid evidence to support this.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Even Acts suggests that the Jews weren't buying any of this Jesus Christ stuff so they turned to the gentiles in order to recruit new believers.
Acts 13:46-48, 18:6, 28:24-31 - Passage Lookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com
Acts 13:46-48, 18:6, 28:24-31 - Passage Lookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com
Only you used it to answer this point:
My argument concerns the historical Jesus in his entirety. If you are refuting "point 3" above with this comment:
Than either your reading compresion skills of point #3 are lacking, or you are using the fact that Mark "supposedly" drew on the OT for his crucifion story to refute the historical Jesus.
Hardly. Virtually none of it is in the OT. There is no crucifixion narrative, the messiah was not supposed to die, and so forth. However, as with the entire Jesus tradition, parts of this narrative (which is based on a historical event)were fashioned from Jewish scripture. Jesus' words on the cross, and in other places, are probably simply taken out of Jewish scripture, and are not actually from Jesus' lips. It is certain that Jesus would have framed many of his sayings in light of scripture, even often repeating scripture verbatim, but most of the crucifion narrative (which, by the way, is pre-Markan) is a narrative graphed in onto what little was known about Jesus' death. It is likely that the early christians would have gotten details about the "trial" in front of Caiaphas, and the crucifixion itself, and other details, but these would probably be very general, upon which the oral passion narrative added to, and mark eventually recorded.
You haven't studied first century judaism. What on earth would you know about the jewish audience? As for the literary process, it is actually an oral one. The passion narrative is pre-markan (the synopsis is found even in Paul). Textual analysis of the synoptics alone makes this clear, and we have an entirely independent (from the synoptics) account of the passion in John.
How on earth would that make any sense? The messiah was not supposed to die, so the death of Jesus "Christ" would mean nothing to jews who weren't followers of the Jesus sect. Stories about prophets, like the accounts of Jesus, were not taken "theologically" but were considered historical. No Jew of Jesus' day would hear or read stories about a prophet/teacher/messiah and think that it wasn't meant to be actual accounts.
Finally, there is nothing in the OT, despite the fact that the early christians (and modern ones as well) attempt to see in it the coming of Jesus, which looks to Jesus' coming, let alone his trial and death.
We do get some different views, but largely it is the same. There is a reason for this: the passion narrative was an oral narrative that pre-dated all the gospels, and most scholars believe it dates to the 40s, but some to the 50s. Analysis of the synoptics aside, the fact that John, which is entirely independent of the synoptics has substantially the same version means that we are dealing with an oral text which predates all the gospels.
1. Accounts of prophets and such similar to Jesus were all taken historically
2. There were no "purely" theological texts, not even Philo, the most theological of all, and certainly there is nothing akin to the gospels in Jewish literature which is not meant to be taken historically.
3. There is no way to create the passion narrative purely from the OT. There are, however, many ways to take that historical event and attempt to relate it to Jewish scripture.
Which, again, you know nothing about.
That has been the view of many christian historians such as Bultmann: the last defense of Jesus from the study of history. If we can know very little about the historical Jesus (and again, Bultmann and the other extreme skeptics were certain a historical Jesus existed), than all that remains is the Christ of Faith. The Jesus of history is a shadowy figure, and therefore Christ is protected from historical inquiry.
They weren't writing at the end of the century. Mark was written c. 70 CE, a mere 30 years or so after Jesus' mission. Plenty of eyewitnesses who lived in Jerusalem (where the hub of the Jesus sect was) let alone galilee and other christian communities would be present to say "this never happened." Christians like Paul, if (as you say) they didn't believe in a historical christ, would have paid no attention to the gospels. Yet we know they did. And Paul himself nails down Jesus' lifetime, because his brother was still living. Josephus confirms this.
1. How does Paul's concentration on gentiles mean that no Jews were converting?
2. Many Jews did not accept that Jesus was the messiah, and many gentiles never converted. Yet, although we have records hostile to christianity which survive, there is nothing to indicate that anyone thought jesus never existed.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
There were perhaps a number of Jesus movements and Christ cults that emerged, Mack identifies about five but fails to explain how they all necessarily funnel back down to a single founder.
--------------------------------------------------
Christian scholar Burton Mack, of the Claremont School of Theology, had this to say about these passages in Didache:
--------------------------------------------------
Christian scholar Burton Mack, of the Claremont School of Theology, had this to say about these passages in Didache:
The prayer of thanksgiving (eucharist) for the community meal in chapters 9 and 10 are also significant. That is because they do not contain any reference to the death of Jesus. Accustomed as we are to the memorial supper of the Christ cult and the stories of the last supper in the synoptic gospels, it has been very difficult to imagine early Christians taking meals together for any reason other than to celebrate the death of Jesus according to the Christ myth. But here in the Didache a very formalistic set of prayers is assigned to the cup and the breaking of bread without the slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The prayers of thanksgiving are for the food and drink God created for all people and the special, "spiritual" food and drink that Christians have because of Jesus. Drinking the cup symbolizes the knowledge these people have that they and Jesus are the "Holy Vine of David," which means that they "belong to Israel." Eating the bread symbolizes the knowledge these people have of the life and immortality they enjoy by belonging to the kingdom of God made known to them by Jesus, God's child. And it is serious business. No one is allowed to "eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's name" (Did. 9:5). We thus have to imagine a highly self-conscious network of congregations that thought of themselves as Christians, had developed a full complement of rituals, had much in common with other Christian groups of centrist persuasions, but continued to cultivate their roots in a Jesus movement where enlightenment ethics made much more sense than the worship of Jesus as the crucified Christ and risen son of God.
- Burton Mack; Who Wrote the New Testament
- Burton Mack; Who Wrote the New Testament