There is no such thing as historical proof. However, there is more evidence that Jesus existed than for all but a few ancient figures. See here
-
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!
Is the Vatican Jesus different from the Gnostic Jesus?
- Thread starter VinDino11
- Start date
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
There's more "proof" for mickey mouse...
after all I can go out and buy videos of Mickey....
all the ones of Jesus are merely actors
Mickey videos are real life documentarys :flirt:
While a thread on the distinction between evidence and proof might be valuable, I see nothing wrong in a vernacular that equates a large body of compelling and uncontested historical evidence (e.g., George Washington's letters at the Smithsonian) with "historical proof."
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Oberon, your essay, while well articulated, does not confirm the existance of a historical jesus. Your incorrect in saying that "every" historian agree's jesus is a historical figure, although that is the majority opinion. There is very little mention of jesus in any historical documents outside christians works that can be considered (only 5 within 150 years of the time christians guess jesus to have lived). Josephus' work was the closest to the time period of jesus. It mention as Yeshua who worked miracles in the false messiah section of one of his works, but no description or other identifiers are listed. There were other Yeshua's of the time that were also said to have performed miracles, and Yeshua was a common name of the time, like our John today. There's no reason to assume it's reffering to the christian yeshua. There are similair problems with all the earliest references.
People contest the holocaust. The problem with history is that once it happens, its over. You can't replicate it. So we have people who deny the holocaust took place.
Is there more evidence for some things in history than others? Of course. But history is all about determining the most plausible scenerio given the evidence. That Jesus existed is far more plausible than any other explanation. That he rose from the dead as god is far LESS plausible than any other explanation. And so on. That's history.
It is more than the majority. With the possible exception of Price, there are no experts in the field who believe that Jesus isn't a historical figure.
You obviously didn't read the whole thing (I had to divide it into several posts). I addressed this. Even if we only had the gospels, that would be plenty.
Also, your wrong about what Josephus says.
Last edited:
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
No, in considering what is a credible source historically one must consider a variety of factors. One such factor is the credibility of the author. The authors of the gospels clearly believed in jesus as a messiah, but they wrote on him without ever meeting him. Learning of him from people who also had not seen or met him. The gospels in short are a biased account of fourth hand information. They are not credible historically.
If you think I'm wrong about jospehus than by all means provide proof of this. Or since this is getting a bit off the topic of the thread you could start a new one in the debate section and we could continue this discussion there. And your right, I did not previously see the numerious additional posts that extended your discussion on the other thread.
Last edited:
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
So did all ancient historians. They all wrote about events they weren't present at, there histories contained myths, etc. You should have read my whole thread.
Not necessarily fourth hand. Certainly not first-hand. But this is par for the course with ancient history.
You haven't studied ancient history then.
If you think I'm wrong about jospehus than by all means provide proof of this.[/quote]
First, Josephus wrote in Greek. So he wouldn't mention Yeshua, but Iesous. There is no reason to use the hebrew name if josephus doesn't.
Second, there are two references in Josephus. One is the shorter reference in which Jesus is used to identify his brother James. James was still living during Josephus' time, Jesus was important enough to be used to distinguish James from ever other James. Josephus says "James, the brother of Jesus, the one called christ."
Again, had you actually read my entire thread, you would have known all this.
Actually, "wrong" gives it too much credit. Have you ever actually read Josephus?
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
First, Josephus wrote in Greek. So he wouldn't mention Yeshua, but Iesous. There is no reason to use the hebrew name if josephus doesn't.
Second, there are two references in Josephus. One is the shorter reference in which Jesus is used to identify his brother James. James was still living during Josephus' time, Jesus was important enough to be used to distinguish James from ever other James. Josephus says "James, the brother of Jesus, the one called christ."
Again, had you actually read my entire thread, you would have known all this.[/quote]
Again it might be better to continue this on a seperate thread. Which section are you quoting there?
I was thinking of this one, and this is before it accounts for the injected forgery bits.
"At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising works, (and) a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual. He stirred up both many Jews and many of Greeks. He was the Christ. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the first-rate men among us, those who had been living (him from) the first did not cease (to cause trouble), for he appeared to them on the third day, having life again, as the prophets of God had foretold these and countless other marvelous things about him. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not (yet?) extinct." Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Bk XVIII, Ch III, Sn 3
No mention of a james.
Hi again.
I'm not the most knowledgable of people, but I'll have a quick go.
Sadly the whole idea of an evil Vatican hiding the truth and covering things up just really have as much weight as opponents of Christianity would like to claim it has. In fact, Catholicism didn't really exist until the Great Schism of 1054 - ironically this was a split caused over a creed.(The Filioque - "and the son". According to my Christianity teacher in university, this was added to keep the rhythym of the music or something like that. It's been a while, I can't remember too clearly.)
Why did the Nicene Creed appear? Simple, because this is what a significant number of people believed. Would people have not protested much more fiercly if they suddenly brought this minor or non-existent concept out of the air? Of course they would, and none of the scholars would have accepted it.
The Nicene Creed was basically a fancy way of saying "We don't believe what Arius taught", and in keeping with the Trinity that many probably already subscribed to anyway.
Why those books of the Bible and not the gnostic ones? Simple, they didn't see the other texts as divinely inspired. Why? Because there were things that went against what they thought, for example, in many gnostic sects, matter itself, that is, anything physical, was evil. So, how was Jesus God's son and begotten by Him and a human woman? The woman would have been evil because she was flesh. That didn't make sense to many.
Some gnostic groups, if I recall correctly, had practices that would have gone against the Hebrew "Old Testament", such as starving themselves to death and self mortification (though ironically, this crept into Catholicism much later on. heh) which would have been horrendous.
Other books of the Bible would have been simply lost (nobody printed them again), or deemed not to have been divinely inspired, sometimes because of contradictions with scriptures they had already decided were inspired. I suspect that the number of books burned for "HERESY!" is a lot lower than opponents make out.
Link #2 doesn't work by the way, so I can't answer that yet.
I may have some, a lot, or all of this wrong
I follow what you've said here. It is interesting that I picked up on this when I read from the book, Peter, Paul and Marydalene by Bart Erhman. What I read actually goes a long way in describing what the Apostle Paul's understanding of women, God and salvation. Similarities seemed evident between the NT and this Gnostics and the contrast of the Gnostic writings may have been a little too close to the truth of understanding then; so they were not to become a part of the Canon. Just a thought. I will build on this idea for a long time.
By all means write a response to the thread I posted and gave you a link to. That would be the perfect place.
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Oh, I thought about that but isn't that in the religous discussion section? I thought this was too much a debate for that section, but if you think that is fine, I'll see you on that thread then
I know of only one influence that came out of the Vatican. So a little history will help. The first Greek New Testament written was not the first published. It was written by a humanist intellectual Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus had studied the NT and other works of antiquity. Erasmus went to Basel to find appropriate manuscripts to use for the basis of his works. He made haste because he knew that another work was being written, Complutensian Polyglot. Erasmus had to rely heavily on a 12th century manuscript for the Gospels. For the book of Acts he was able to consult several other manuscripts and make corrections. A borrowed manuscript on Revelations was missing the last page and was almost impossible to read. His efforts were published without editing. Erasmus simply took the Latin Vulgate and translated the last six verses of Revelation back into Greek. This is the edition that was used by translators of the King James Version. One verse (1 John 5:7-8, called the Johannine Comma) in particular was never found in any Greek manuscript. This was the favorite vers of Christian theologians. This was the only reference to delineate the doctrine of the Trinity. Since Erasmus could not find these verses he left them out. There was an insistance that Erasmus return the verses to the NT. Erasmus said he would if there could be found a manuscripts with it in it. And so, manuscripts were created with 1 John 5:7-8 and true to his words he returned the verse to his Greek NT. This is the Greek NT that the King James Bible is translated from.
The Textus Receptus was a version of the Greek New Testament put together by Desiderius Erasmus. The first edition was finished printing in 1516. Although this was not the FIRST printed version of the Greek New Testament (which was the Complutensian Polyglot printed in 1514), it became the most influential, and formed the basis for the New Testament books of the KJV in 1611, just as you say.
However, there were quite a few issues with this text, not just 1 John 5:7-8. Not only was the edition put together with a great deal of haste, there were a number of issues with the texts used. For example, Erasmus was unable to find a single Greek text which contained the entire New Testament. Most of the text was based on two inferior manuscripts found at the library at Basle, dating from the 12th century. He had only one manuscript for Revelations, also from the 12th century. However, this manuscript was not complete, and so (rather than delay publication) Erasmus simply translated the Latin Vulgate into Greek to complete Revelations. He also used the Vulgate in other places of his text (e.g. Acts 9:6). In the end, Erasmus used a half-dozen Greek manuscripts, and the best he had at his disposal (Codex 1, from the 10th century) he used least. As mentioned, it was this publication which was used for the KJV.
2. Problems with the Textus Receptus
There are a number of issues present in the Textus Receptus, and I will address some of the major ones here.
A) The Comma Johanneum (as you stated)
In the edition of the Textus Receptus used for the KJV, Erasmus inserted what is commonly called the Comma Johanneum into his text. This is the version of 1 John 5.7-8 which states that the Father, the Word, and The Holy Ghost: and these three are once. And there are three that bear witness in earth.
No textual critic today argues that this was originally part of the epistle, for a number of reasons.
1) Of the many, many, many, Greek texts, only eight possess this passage
1. The Codex Montfortianus (16th century)
2. A variant reading added to the Codex Regius of Naples (14th century)
3. A variant reading added to a 10th century manuscript in the Bodleian Library
4. A variant reading added to a 16th century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
5. A variant reading added to a 16th century manuscript at Naples
6. An 18th century manuscript at Bucharest, Rumania
7. A 16th century manuscript at Escorial, Spain
8. The 16th century Codex Ravianus, produced from the Complutensian Polyglot
Of these 8, four of them do not actually have the Comma in the text itself, but rather have a marginal addition on the side as a variant reading. None of our earliest and best Greek texts have this reading.
2) None of the Greek Fathers quote the text, although it would have certainly been of use to them in Trinitarian controversies. Its first appearance in Greek is in the 13th century.
3) All of the ancient manuscripts (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic) except for one do not have this reading. The exception is Latin, but it is not found in the Latin of Tertullian, Cyprian, or Augustine, or in the early copies of the Vulgate of Jerome (Codex Fuldensis, Codex Amiatinus, and the Codex Vallicellianus).
4) The earliest insertion of this reading is found in the 4th century Latin treatise Liber Apologeticus and it appears that it began to be circulated more and more widely from this point.
B) Acts 9:6
I already mentioned that Erasmus used the Vulgate for parts of the Textus Receptus, including Act 9:6. Subsequently, the KJV included the line And he trembling and astonished, said Lord, what will you have me to do? None of our Greek texts possess this line. They are found in some of the Latin texts, as well as a Syrian and Coptic text. The vast majority of our texts (including ALL the Greek texts) do not have this line.
C) The Ending of Mark
The longer ending of Mark in the KJV is not found in our earliest and best witnesses to the New Testament (which were not available at the time): The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. They are also absent from the Old Latin manuscript known as the Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, a hundred or so of the Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts. Furthermore, Eusebius and Jerome both state that the passage was not present in all the Greek manuscripts of Mark that they were aware of.
D) John 7:53-8.11
The KJV contains the well known example of the woman taken in adultery. However, this is absent from our earliest sources. One of the most important discoveries of New Testament manuscripts, the Bodmer Papyrus II, actually dates from about 200 A.D. This is one of the earliest texts we possess of any part of the NT, and it does not contain the sotry of the adulterous woman. This story is also missing from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, along with such manuscripts as L, N, T, W X, Y, Δ, Θ, Ψ, and a number of others. It is absent also from the oldest Syriac version, the Gothic version, the Sahidic versions, the Old Georgian version, the sub-Achmimic versions, and the older Bohairic manuscripts. It is absent from several of our Latin manuscripts, and no Greek Father quotes it prior to the 12th century.
These are but a few of some of the problems with the Textus Receptus, which was used for the KJV. There are several more (virtually all of them relatively minor). There are several hundred variations in our various witnesses to the New Testament, but these as well are usually easily resolved. However, to argue that the KJV commissioned by King James is superior to any later version of the Bible is to ignore the many discoveries of superior texts since the KJV was produced. It simply IS NOT the best version of the Bible we have available today.
Don't go with this book. It is a sensationalist book. He completely overstates his case, and contradicts statements in the scholarly publication he co-authored with his teacher. Read The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. Far better. Also, for those who read greek, Metzger wrote a terrific textual commentary to accompany the Greek New Testament