Is the Bible Really True?

[roger1440]

ROFL! I hadn't seen that before. It's priceless. Thanks for sharing. Loved it.

You live a sheltered life. You need to get out more.

 

[outhouse]

I am not interested in any discussion that belittles others

Don't blame me because they embarrass themselves.


I wrote this at another site, and it explains the current state of mythicism very well, and Peter Kirbys response to my reply.


For me, what it comes down to is the fact, nothing explains the evidence as well as a martyred Galilean that was crucified at Passover for causing trouble. There are no mental hurdles, and the cultural and physical anthropology fit 100% in line with no imagination required. Add to the fact not one of the movements enemies within that living generation claimed he was not a man. And there were many people trying to shut this movement down that would have used any propaganda they could to deem these people heretics and blasphemers.

I see all credible scholars dealing with historical aspects and evidence, and none of the counter arguments so far carry enough weight to even warrant a response. Maybe that will change if mythicist provide better arguments, and that movement grows enough. But answering better questions put forth will not prove mythicism. It will take a REAL explanation of evidence, a replacement hypothesis that is credible.

Peters response.

I'm glad that you're here contributing and making your point. But with just those two paragraphs you've done more to make the case for the historicity of Jesus than most scholars I've seen, even when I limit it to just the ones who've made a comment on the historicity of Jesus. And I don't believe it's because these guys have arguments on the tip of their tongue and choose not to say them.

 

[roger1440]

Checked out both Josephus and Tacitus. Josephus refers to Christ twice and Tacitus once. That's not tons of proof. And for such a well-known personage as Jesus you would think there were many more references. However, I certainly acknowledge that there are three independent references. Additionally, I don't count the gospels as they are not independent writings. They were written by people who had a vested interest in their content.

I have read in more than one place that the accounts of Tacitus and Josephus suggest they are authentic because they are from independent sources. To come to the conclusion they come from independent sources would require a leap of faith. No one knows what sources either author had used for their accounts. It is very possible both authors had used a single account that had slightly evolved in different directions over the decades.

 

[outhouse]

I have read in more than one place that the accounts of Tacitus and Josephus suggest they are authentic because they are from independent sources.

Some parts seem to be, other do not. Its a case by case basis on each sentence, as interpolations and glosses were common on both.

To come to the conclusion they come from independent sources would require a leap of faith.

True

. No one knows what sources either author had used for their accounts.

True.

It is very possible both authors had used a single account that had slightly evolved in different directions over the decades.

Not so easy to throw that out there with any certainty.

During this time, the movement wide and varied and no orthodoxy what so ever.

Christianity did not grow from one source, it grew in many places and differently and diversely in many cases based on geographic location.

 

[maggie2]

I have read in more than one place that the accounts of Tacitus and Josephus suggest they are authentic because they are from independent sources. To come to the conclusion they come from independent sources would require a leap of faith. No one knows what sources either author had used for their accounts. It is very possible both authors had used a single account that had slightly evolved in different directions over the decades.

Yes, I think you are right about this. I am glad you brought that to my attention. It bears thinking about further. Actually, in taking a look at the dates their work was published, they could have used the gospel of Mark as their source of information as it was available at the time they wrote. Interesting thought. And I realize that Josephus was in Rome, however, so was Paul, so his (Josephus') information could have come from there. It would be really interesting to know both his and Tacitus' sources.

 

[maggie2]

Don't blame me because they embarrass themselves.


I wrote this at another site, and it explains the current state of mythicism very well, and Peter Kirbys response to my reply.


For me, what it comes down to is the fact, nothing explains the evidence as well as a martyred Galilean that was crucified at Passover for causing trouble. There are no mental hurdles, and the cultural and physical anthropology fit 100% in line with no imagination required. Add to the fact not one of the movements enemies within that living generation claimed he was not a man. And there were many people trying to shut this movement down that would have used any propaganda they could to deem these people heretics and blasphemers.

I see all credible scholars dealing with historical aspects and evidence, and none of the counter arguments so far carry enough weight to even warrant a response. Maybe that will change if mythicist provide better arguments, and that movement grows enough. But answering better questions put forth will not prove mythicism. It will take a REAL explanation of evidence, a replacement hypothesis that is credible.

Peters response.

I'm glad that you're here contributing and making your point. But with just those two paragraphs you've done more to make the case for the historicity of Jesus than most scholars I've seen, even when I limit it to just the ones who've made a comment on the historicity of Jesus. And I don't believe it's because these guys have arguments on the tip of their tongue and choose not to say them.

You say:

none of the counter arguments so far carry enough weight to even warrant a response.

So if they don't deserve a response then why are you responding to this post and what I have said about Tom Harpur?

Guess it must do your heart good to be praised by Peter Kirby. I assume he is the one who shows up on Google as a literary crime fiction writer? I didn't know that crime writers were also Biblical scholars.

 

[leibowde84]

he should have used this "" If, for example, "" in his quote he did misquote you

BUT

He was a real human being and there is almost near consensus among scholars that he existed.


It is stated as fact as can be he was crucified, and baptized by John.


Most of what you stated is based of lack of education in the field, there is only a small handful of mythicist that actually have any biblical training.

Most are crack pots with no credible education in the field they discuss.

"He was a real human being and there is almost near consensus among scholars that he existed."

I think this is a flawed statement. There is no way to prove conclusively/difinitively that Jesus lived on earth. It seems like you understand this, yet you difinitively claim "he was a real human being." I would suggest saying "it is almost a certainty that Jesus Christ lived." Just a thought.

 

[outhouse]

There is no way to prove conclusively/difinitively that Jesus lived on earth.

Correct.

Nor many other historical characters, who's historicity is not questioned.

Facts is though, Jesus has historicity which is based on plausibility. Plausibility so high, many consider it fact he was crucified and baptized. Which is the foundation many build from creating their version of the real man outside theology and mythology.

 

[outhouse]

I think this is a flawed statement.

The man has historicity.

This will remain in place until a credible replacement hypothesis is provided that explains a mythological ONLY origin.


So far for over a hundred years every singe one put forth has been effectively refuted in full, with no questions.

Recently, two what I would call geniuses, Carrier and Price. both well educated, Price has the biblical education Carrier lacks. Have both put forward replacement hypothesis. Both are laughable at best and have been refuted in full.

So you have the best and brightest attempting to explain the evidence we have, and both have failed miserably.


Nothing explains the evidence as well as a martyred Galilean that was crucified at Passover for causing trouble, who was martyred and generated mythology surrounding this event.

 

[leibowde84]

Correct.

Nor many other historical characters, who's historicity is not questioned.

Facts is though, Jesus has historicity which is based on plausibility. Plausibility so high, many consider it fact he was crucified and baptized. Which is the foundation many build from creating their version of the real man outside theology and mythology.

Apart from writings written by early Christians (who had an obvious bias/interest in making sure Jesus's life was substantiated) and Josephus (who's note about Jesus may have been added by a later editor), was Jesus written about by anyone else who lived during his lifetime? I ask this because there are not many historical figures that wrote down nothing and only had his own followers, with an obvious bias to substantiate his existence, right about him. If there was one, we would most likely have major doubts as to whether they existed.

I just think it should be noted that Jesus never wrote anything down, not one of his followers who knew him wrote anything down, and, finally, the only writings about him were authored by men who never met the man and had an obvious bias in making sure that his existence seemed substantiated. How do you reconcile this fact? What historical figure whose existence is assumed is victim of the same lack of objective evidence? I'd love to discuss an example.

 

[outhouse]

I assume

You assumed wrong.

he is the one who shows up on Google as a literary crime fiction writer?

Nope

here

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Guess it must do your heart good to be praised by Peter Kirby

Yes it made my day from someone who has that much knowledge on the subject.

That and the day I was asked to teach/lecture as a guest at Sac city

 

[leibowde84]

The man has historicity.

This will remain in place until a credible replacement hypothesis is provided that explains a mythological ONLY origin.


So far for over a hundred years every singe one put forth has been effectively refuted in full, with no questions.

Recently, two what I would call geniuses, Carrier and Price. both well educated, Price has the biblical education Carrier lacks. Have both put forward replacement hypothesis. Both are laughable at best and have been refuted in full.

So you have the best and brightest attempting to explain the evidence we have, and both have failed miserably.


Nothing explains the evidence as well as a martyred Galilean that was crucified at Passover for causing trouble, who was martyred and generated mythology surrounding this event.

I see this notion a lot on this forum. Why is one authorized to state "Jesus did exist" when it is not decided? Why must a choice (either all myth or all real) be made? My argument is that you should say, "it is almost certain" or "according to the evidence, we can safely assume." Why don't you feel a necessity to be accurate in your statement? I don't agree with the claim that Jesus was purely mythical. But, I also know that there is a possibility (however unlikely) that Jesus did not exist in the way that we think. I just think, especially on a forum like this, that everyone should do their best to be accurate in their claims.

 

[maggie2]

You assumed wrong.



Nope

here

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers



Yes it made my day from someone who has that much knowledge on the subject.

That and the day I was asked to teach/lecture as a guest at Sac city

Yup, I did assume wrong. I stand corrected. Thanks for the link. I'll explore it when I get a few minutes.

 

[outhouse]

was Jesus written about by anyone else who lived during his lifetime?

Nope, his closest contemporary was Paul.

How do you reconcile this fact?

He was not famous until he was martyred by his perceived selfless actions in the temple at Passover in front of a half million people.

Teaching apocalyptic Aramaic Judaism in the temple with half a million people will not get you noticed by anyone at all, no matter how profound your message was.


Taking on the corrupt government running the temple and the hated Sadducees, by yourself possibly trying to start a riot that would gather the people behind you, would however get you noticed as his death and crucifixion created his martyrdom.

What historical figure whose existence is assumed is victim of the same lack of objective evidence?

Many people have unquestioned historicity with almost no writings to verify their existence. Once we go back in time, there is a line where little can actually be proved, and it is based on plausibility. Almost all biblical characters fall under this category. But historians have no problem claiming many figures are mythology or literary creations no matter how popular, such as Abraham, Noah, Moses, and on and on and on.

Two examples, Conspiracy nutters try and state Paul never existed.

On the other side of the coin we have John the Baptist, he has 1/1000 the text and evidence Jesus does and no one with credibility really denies he lived.


A strong piece of evidence is that thousands lived and were alive during the Passover in question, and were still alive when the text was produced, and nota single one questioned his existence.

If you created a 100% mythological character, you would not place him in the middle of the worlds largest rock concert, and say he was up on stage belting out the best song during that event. Only 15 years ago. You would also as a Hellenist, not make a deity out of oppressed peasant Jew that were a dime a dozen.

 

[maggie2]

Apart from writings written by early Christians (who had an obvious bias/interest in making sure Jesus's life was substantiated) and Josephus (who's note about Jesus may have been added by a later editor), was Jesus written about by anyone else who lived during his lifetime? I ask this because there are not many historical figures that wrote down nothing and only had his own followers, with an obvious bias to substantiate his existence, right about him. If there was one, we would most likely have major doubts as to whether they existed.

I just think it should be noted that Jesus never wrote anything down, not one of his followers who knew him wrote anything down, and, finally, the only writings about him were authored by men who never met the man and had an obvious bias in making sure that his existence seemed substantiated. How do you reconcile this fact? What historical figure whose existence is assumed is victim of the same lack of objective evidence? I'd love to discuss an example.

Wish I had said it this well myself! I really appreciate this post. It is well thought out and stated. I'll have to study your posts to see if I can ever get that clear in what I'm trying to say.

I also read your other post about having to choose between all myth and all human. I like that too. As I said earlier on this thread I am on the fence on this one and would love to find some definitive evidence one way or the other, although that may never happen. Do you lean towards the human thinking? If I read your post rightly, i.e., "I don't agree with the claim that Jesus was purely mythical," it would seem that you lean more towards him being human.

 

[outhouse]

Yup, I did assume wrong. I stand corrected. Thanks for the link. I'll explore it when I get a few minutes.

He has a forum there as well, its a carry over forum from another that died, that holds some of the major players in mythicism.

Carrier and Doherty and AchryaS have posted there in the past, another known scholar just left after years, and Neil Godfrey now frequents the place.

It is an advanced forum that is more or less very aggressive, as we have all been debating each other for years.

You may like it, if you want to see how much some people can tear down the evidence, or follow DC or Diogenes and learn the hardest part of the game. How to actually create credible history.

Agnostic for the most part, with a mythicist core. Not many apologist.

 

[leibowde84]

Wish I had said it this well myself! I really appreciate this post. It is well thought out and stated. I'll have to study your posts to see if I can ever get that clear in what I'm trying to say.

I also read your other post about having to choose between all myth and all human. I like that too. As I said earlier on this thread I am on the fence on this one and would love to find some definitive evidence one way or the other, although that may never happen. Do you lean towards the human thinking? If I read your post rightly, i.e., "I don't agree with the claim that Jesus was purely mythical," it would seem that you lean more towards him being human.

Thank you for those lovely sentiments. And, don't sell yourself short. I've read your posts and they are very well thought-out and articulate.

I would say that you are correct in your assessment, as I do believe that Jesus was a historical figure. I also am a Christian, but my Christianity is on a personal basis and does not hinder my search for truth. If one day I find out that Jesus wasn't "all-that," I will be open to it. But, my spiritual identity is not enough for me ... I need much much more. I want to understand everything about our physical world, and I want to do battle with anyone who sticks with assumptions or beliefs as if they are fact.

 

[maggie2]

He has a forum there as well, its a carry over forum from another that died, that holds some of the major players in mythicism.

Carrier and Doherty and AchryaS have posted there in the past, another known scholar just left after years, and Neil Godfrey now frequents the place.

It is an advanced forum that is more or less very aggressive, as we have all been debating each other for years.

You may like it, if you want to see how much some people can tear down the evidence, or follow DC or Diogenes and learn the hardest part of the game. How to actually create credible history.

Agnostic for the most part, with a mythicist core. Not many apologist.

Thanks for the invitation. I'll check it out. I'm not much into debating as opposed to discussion. I don't feel any need to win my point, which is certainly part of the debate process. I think I'm more interested in how much people can share ideas that provoke thought and encourage exploration than in tearing down evidence.

You have really piqued my curiosity with your comment, "How to actually create credible history." Can you explain that further? It seems like an interesting concept.

 

[maggie2]

Thank you for those lovely sentiments. And, don't sell yourself short. I've read your posts and they are very well thought-out and articulate.

I would say that you are correct in your assessment, as I do believe that Jesus was a historical figure. I also am a Christian, but my Christianity is on a personal basis and does not hinder my search for truth. If one day I find out that Jesus wasn't "all-that," I will be open to it. But, my spiritual identity is not enough for me ... I need much much more. I want to understand everything about our physical world, and I want to do battle with anyone who sticks with assumptions or beliefs as if they are fact.

It's wonderful to find people who have an open mind and are interested in learning. Personally, I consider myself spiritual but not religious. After a time in a fundamentalist group I found myself needing some distance from Christianity. Over the last number of years (almost thirty of them), I have chosen to maintain that distance. I don't truly believe what the Christian church believes so I just can't go and sit on Sunday and pretend I do. I do, however, have a rich faith in God, not necessarily the God of the Bible, however, but a Source of Life that infuses all of life, including humans.

I must say that leaving the church was difficult for me as I had and still have many friends there and of course there were/are questions about why I wasn't going to church any more. I chose to simply say that I wasn't comfortable with some of the teachings and then I'd change the subject. I think each person has to find a path that is right for them and for many that is the Christian church. We are all at different stages of our journey and we need to be willing to follow our path wherever it leads us.

 

[outhouse]

"How to actually create credible history." Can you explain that further? It seems like an interesting concept.

That's the tough job. I don't have the qualifications to be a scholar. You could wiki "historical method" for more details. Biblical history falls in its own category since text is often the only evidence, this time period is difficult due to the poor evidence we possess.

Historical methods are often different from periods like the civil war, ect ect.

Generally based upon cultural and social anthropology, and text, one can try and recreate why the authors wrote what they did. This gives us a glimpse of what might have happened.

Add to that there are ranges of which different scholars accept certain evidence. Most scholars do not engage in conspiracy minded madness, but you get these types on the end of the spectrum. Spectrum being the key word.

One thing I did learn, history is gone forever, and we cannot fully create the past, those moments are gone forever. Hence the term glimpse.