doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Right. It's not a distortion at all. Is English a second language to you?That's a pathetic distortion. I quoted Durant solely to counter the assertion that "Jesus isn't found in history books."
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Right. It's not a distortion at all. Is English a second language to you?That's a pathetic distortion. I quoted Durant solely to counter the assertion that "Jesus isn't found in history books."
LOL.And you don't read enough history.
Did I say they were "historians"? They intended what they wrote to be treated like we would "history" - even if it wasn't always as factual as it could be. There's no indication of that with the Gospels. Though the Gospels themselves are an important part of history as the artifacts that they are, the extent to which any of the authors (who are largely unknown) intended them to be an historical or biographical account of an actual person, is unknown. And even if based upon or inspired by an actual person, it's likewise almost impossible to determine which details can be treated as historical "facts" and which ones are a product of an alternative literary purpose for the works - though for many of the would-be "facts," it is reasonable to assume fall into the latter category, such as raising the dead, multiplying bread and fishes, cursing fig trees, etc.I already quoted Livy's use of miracle and myth within his "history." None of those "historians" you quote would be historians by today's standards.
Precisely. Josephus is inconsistent even between his works, let alone when compared against others.
Well thank you because from our long winded debates on those tiny little passeges of Josephus, one clearly had been tampered with, I was starting to get the sense that the case for the historical Jesus hinged on this supposed outside ("outside of the bible and later "historians") source.
Now what I'm trying to do is research to see if any contemporary to the biblical Jesus wrote of him at the time. I suspect if there were it would have been offered as evidence.....but I'm still looking.....
I think the fact that there are no writings from the supposed Jesus quite important. What better way to make sure his own message was not distorted than to make sure it was written down in black and white? A supposed god could not fail to realiize this fact. Depending on hearsay evidence many years down the line would not be a great way to insure his real message got thru. It is almost impossible to believe he would not have had a few writings to relate his real message to the world.
You're going to be looking a long time.
Tell me, dogsgod, on what grounds do you insist that the Jerusalem church is a Pauline/Lucan fabrication?Attempting to disprove a mythological Jesus doesn't mean that an historical Jesus is a given.
Yeah, their not necessarily arguing his divinity, but his historicity. Whether or not he lived, which is actually a different case. But I agree with you, if he is the supposed "son of god" you would think only he could convey the message best. But we have no writings from him. He might not have been literate, as most people weren't literate in his day. Eh who knows.
Tell me, dogsgod, on what grounds do you insist that the Jerusalem church is a Pauline/Lucan fabrication?
My apologies. What is your view of the Jerusalem church?I don't recall insisting that the church in Jerusalem is a Pauline/Lucan fabrication, why, what's your point?
My apologies. What is your view of the Jerusalem church?
You reject the Epistle to the Galatians as a reference to a Jerusalem church. Why is that? And what is your opinion of the church discussed in Acts?It's not mentioned in any of the epistles.
You reject the Epistle to the Galatians as a reference to a Jerusalem church. Why is that? And what is your opinion of the church discussed in Acts?
Get back to me when you're done with your childish game ...I can't find the Galatians reference. Why don't you quote it with chapter and verse instead of playing around with your leading questions and silly accusations?
Given your lack of any knowledge, you would hardly be in a position to judge the merits of the website. And in fact, you have judged very poorly.The following makes more sense than reading the gospels as a history. The following is from a website, it's an excellent source of information:
Not really. For well over a century it has been clear to scholars that Mark weaved various sayings, teachings, and a few more complete narratives into a more whole/comple narrative/life of Jesus. This reworking, especially given the fact that Mark is not a particularly skilled writer, naturally has problems.Throughout history many scholars have considered the Gospel of Mark a puzzling, and at times incoherent, work.
then the work makes perfect sense.
The differences you point out are superficial at best.
I think it's best if you present your own reasons for believing that Jesus was an historical figure, in other words show how your claims holds up to scrutiny based on its own merits.
There's no indication of that with the Gospels.
it's likewise almost impossible to determine which details can be treated as historical "facts"
What better way to make sure his own message was not distorted than to make sure it was written down in black and white? A supposed god could not fail to realiize this fact.
And then there is Robert M. Price who provides us with this essay entitled Christ a Fiction. The following is a small excerpt from that essay.
Christ a Fiction
------------
Robert M. Price makes too much sense to ignore.
.
Most scholars are believing Christians with few exceptions. Robert M. Price and Albert Schweitzer are the only two Christians I can name that admit Jesus is a mythical character. Most of the so called experts believed the world was flat for most of civilization. Most is a poor argument, fallacious at best.
Oberon, the gospels consist primarily of a written tradition. Mark was written first Matthew and Luke are copies of Mark with their own birth stories added to the beginning, as well as their own post resurrection stories. The teachings and sayings attributed to a Jesus are included in Matthew and Luke and because they are all almost identical it is hypothesized that they are from a common source called Q. There may be some oral tradition sprinkled in the story line, but the method used to write the gospels is called midrash.
Acts is a work of second century myth making which conflicts with Paul's writings in an attempt to smooth over the conflicts between Paul and other apostles of his day.
Josephus
Reference to Jesus as brother of James
Oh well, wrong Jesus, too bad so sad.
There's problems with the line,"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"There is a suspicious aspect to the reference to Jesus, in that it comes first in the text. That is, the passage reads: “(Ananus) brought before them the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name, together with some others...” Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one?
The following is allegory, borrowing from written traditions rather than an oral tradition, and not a record of actual events.
2 Kings 1:
8 They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist."
The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite."
This implicit reference identifies John the Baptist as Elijah, but this is not obvious to the reader, for there is nothing in the passage that draws attention to the fact that this line is a paraphrase of 2 Kings 1:8, but nevertheless the identification of John the Baptist as Elijah is of critical importance to the storyline in Mark and comes into play later in the narrative. This is the first indication we have that the author of Mark is using both implicit and explicit references to the scriptures, and that elements of the narrative are built around the Hebrew scriptures.
Epistle to the Hebrews 8.4 If he [Jesus] had lived on earth he would not have been a priest.
This is a small mistake, but it reveals such an utter lack of knowledge concerning the culture in discussion that it is worth mentioning. Of course they had calendars.A real person such as Pilate gives the gospel of Mark a time setting. There was no calenders, people kept track of history by events taking place when so and so ruled or governed.
Philo was not writing a religious text when he wrote of Pilate.
This is important, because one of dogsgod's claims is that the gospels are clearly distinguishable from ancient history. Yet here we have a statement which shows a complete lack of understanding of the methods utilized by ancient historians, who ALL used, and usually preferred, oral acounts.Yes by his own admission, Papias preferred hearsay to anything written.
This reveals the same problem as above: a lack of understanding concerning the nature of ancient historical texts. Plaigarism was common, and would not only have been no issue, it would have been expected. The use of the word as a criticism of Luke and Matthew is an anachronism.Bang on, and not only that but it would have been a tremendous embarrassment for the authors of Luke and Matthew had they known their copies would become part of a canon with gMark for the world to see their plagiarism revealed. They copied gMark and they copied from a common sayings source.