Jehovah's myths etc.

[Jayhawker Soule]

You know I cannot point to any non-Biblical records, so your question is designed to irritate than to seek a real answer.

That is nonsense. (Note: not "stupid" but ignorant, as is an inability to distinguish between the two.)

That you admittedly cannot point to any non-Biblical records suggests a great deal:

• It suggests that your earliest 'evidence' for Jesus is from Paul and written a quarter of a century after the putative events. You will recall that Paul seems to know zilch about your savior. The Virgin Birth is absent as is the entire nativity narrative. There is nothing in Paul that suggests any knowledge of a real person, much less first hand knowledge. All you have is some psychotic vision on the road to Damascus. Viewed impartially and taken on its own, Paul's 'evidence' is laughable at best.
• There is widespread agreement that the Synoptics are heavily dependent on their first author, Mark, writing one to two decades after Paul. Again we have no Virgin Birth, no Herodian infantacide, no nativity pomp and ceremony, suggesting that all of these are later accretions to some Jesus legend. Nor do we have anything approaching a first-hand account - just assertions about what someone said and did some 50 years earlier.

If you feel "irritated" by being asked for your evidence, that is more than understandable, but that is a problem inherent in your fable, and not something for which I or any other nonbeliever deserves blain.

 

[Pah]

That's not what I meant. Anyone who has taken world history or western heritage in college knows that historians use the written works of these authors, fictional or non, to get an idea of what it was like in their time. A work may be fictional, but it still can give clues as to what society was like back then.

And Jerry, I didn't use those particular examples for you to break them down individually, I was just making a general point. Those examples just popped into my head first. I think you know the point I was trying to make. Perhaps those examples were a bit poor.

There is no question in my mind that there is historical importance in biblical text. However, that value extends only to the cultural environment of the times. There are points of intersection in the bible and the customs and politics of the day. The bible's historical importance establishes the way life was but not the events that matter to the religions of the bible.

What I recognize as important is the spiritual message that can be taken from the alledged events but not the events themselves. Such is the truth contained in all myth.

 

[john63]

O.K. you've forced me to look elsewhere for evidence even though I didn't really want to. I still hold that the Bible is sufficient, but here you go. I'll did around for more when I have time.


Josephus -Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.




Pliny the Younger- Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)

"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."






Tacitus- Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.) "They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."




Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"

 

[JerryL]

Josephus -Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)

A man who never met Jesus and lived in a completely different area recounts the beliefs of Christians (and many historians think even that was an insert by a later author). This is not support of the historical authenticity of Jesus. I agree that there were Christians in 93 CE

(BTW, Josephus also tells of armies of chariots in the clouds before a battle. Do you believe that true?)

Pliny the Younger- Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)

Also a non-witness; also only attesting to the fact that there were Christians. He says nothing to support that there was a Jesus. I agree that there were Christians in 111 CE

Tacitus- Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)

Another person a century later; reciting Christian beliefs as drawn from Christians. He's not citing any other source than the Christian beleifs themselves. I agree that there were Christians in 115 CE

Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)

2-5 centuries after the fact? You might as well quote Pat Robertson.

Perhaps I should be more specific?
Can you offer any extra-Biblical support that Jesus actually existed. I acknowledge that there were believers in Jesus as early as the second century, I'm asking for proof that their beliefs were true; not what their beliefs were.

Perhaps a roman in Jeruselam mentioned him in describing the army of zombie-saints that marched on Jeruselam. Perhaps a soldier wrote home before his execution for falling asleep at his post on Jesus's tomb? Perhaps Pialte mention him in an execution vouture. Perhaps the local Rabbis (who were all obviously infuriated at him) wrote a letter about him to each other? Perhaps Jesus wrote his parents? Perhaps anyone wrote his parents or him, or about him? Because it seems for the many years this guy was wandering around raising the dead, curing lepers, and generally pissing off the Rabbis; no one anywhere made mention.

 

[john63]

A man who never met Jesus and lived in a completely different area recounts the beliefs of Christians (and many historians think even that was an insert by a later author). This is not support of the historical authenticity of Jesus. I agree that there were Christians in 93 CE

(BTW, Josephus also tells of armies of chariots in the clouds before a battle. Do you believe that true?)

Also a non-witness; also only attesting to the fact that there were Christians. He says nothing to support that there was a Jesus. I agree that there were Christians in 111 CE

Another person a century later; reciting Christian beliefs as drawn from Christians. He's not citing any other source than the Christian beleifs themselves. I agree that there were Christians in 115 CE

2-5 centuries after the fact? You might as well quote Pat Robertson.

Boy, this is a tough room

 

[JerryL]

Boy, this is a tough room

I gave some examples of what I would accept in my edited version. Someone contemporary; or at least referencing something contemporary but not straight out of the church's mouth.

 

[john63]

I gave some examples of what I would accept in my edited version. Someone contemporary; or at least referencing something contemporary but not straight out of the church's mouth.

I understand Jerry. I actually welcome this challenge because it's been a learning experience for me thus far. This is not to say that I'm losing faith in the Bible, for I am not. Don't give up on me just yet. I'm going to spend the next few days researching this.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Boy, this is a tough room

It is a tough room in the sense that there are those here who will require actual evidence before they blindly believe something they are told. We have a few freethinkers in here who are pesky types who need some actual proof of extraordinary claims.

B.

 

[john63]

It is a tough room in the sense that there are those here who will require actual evidence before they blindly believe something they are told. We have a few freethinkers in here who are pesky types who need some actual proof of extraordinary claims.

B.

Yet another veiled insult claiming that religioius folks incapable of rational thought. This ones getting old. Why don't you just stick to the debate and stop with the snide remarks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

O.K. you've forced me to look elsewhere for evidence even though I didn't really want to. I still hold that the Bible is sufficient, but here you go.

Thank you for doing so. Unfortunately, many folks seem quite willing to supply such laundry lists but wholly incapable of defending them. Perhaps this will be different. Let's take them one by one ...

Josephus -Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)

This is the so called "Testimonium Flavianum". In my opinion, a very good overview is offerred by Kirby. You will note that there is widespread consensus that TF is at least a partial forgery. Even the Catholic Encyclopaedia is forced to note:

Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations.​

This not only taints it as evidence but speaks to the suspicion of "pious fraud" on the part of early Christian historians.

Where does this leave us as far as Josephus is concerned? At worst, one is forced to wonder why a Christian apologist or apologists would find it necessary to fabricate an extra-Biblical reference to Jesus. At best, we have a late 1st century gullible writer who took the Christian story at face value.

So, john63, I'll leave it up to you to defend the Josephus reference as probative or, if you prefer, move on to your next bit of evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

john63?

 

[john63]

Actually I don't think it's any more probative than any other supossed evidence. He was born after Jesus died, but not so long after that he didn't know people who were alive during Jesus' ministry. That's interesting.


I'm out of ideas here so I'm going to have to concede that, although as a Christian I believe in Jesus Christ's existence, I can no more prove it with tangible evidence than anyone else. It was a learning experience trying though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually I don't think it's any more probative than any other supossed evidence. He was born after Jesus died, but not so long after that he didn't know people who were alive during Jesus' ministry. That's interesting.

I agree. In fact, it's interesting in two ways:

1. It is interesting that the most verbose reference is so widely viewed to be at least a partial forgery, suggesting both a willingness and a need to fabricate history.
2. It is interesting that nothing else is written about the Jesus movement, despite the fact that he comments elsewhere on a number of messianic claimants.

The TF is not simply 'no more probative than any other supposed evidence', it deserves to be seen as an embarrassment to those who seek to discover the historical Jesus so unknown to Paul.