• 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!

The Resurrection is it provable?

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Paul admits openly that his only source was visions of Jesus.

"For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 1
"Paul admits openly that his only source was visions"

Yes, Paul's only source was that he heard a voice, that did not make him any wise, it blinded him as he himself admits, later he gained his sight, but he lost insight for good, I understand. Instead of Jesus's, it could be the voice of Devil/Satan that Paul heard, it transpires.

Regards
_____________
6*43
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Reply to post 342
Paul met ghost Jesus. Like revelations from Muhammad and Gabrielle, we don't believe these things without evidence. No one should.

The evidence that the Church had when they accepted Paul (the one who had been persecuting them) is the story of Paul's blindness and subsequent healing through Ananias. (Acts 9:10-19)
But of course you do not accept that story without evidence because it is also has supernatural elements.

There is no such thing. The only mention of the demigod Jesus is the Gospels. Fiction. Preachers?????????????????

The first preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2) has Peter proclaiming the resurrection.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Reply to post 699
So the claim made by a guy who says he saw Elvis Presley in Kalamazoo, Michigan 10 years after his death is verified because I read it in the Weekly World News? This guy's "proximity" to the life of Elvis verifies that Elvis was alive and kicking in Kalamazoo in the late 1980s?

If a whole heap of witnesses had the story of seeing and even speaking with Elvis that would be better.
If these people were threatened physically but refused to change their story, that would be even better.
Also with Jesus there is the witness of the promised Holy Spirit that was given and which brought gifts, some miraculous, to the church.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
I owned a woman's vision.

I live in human life as a man's human bio equal.

In my consciousness as a life cell continuance is by woman human. My visions are better than yours.

My vision as a woman sacrificed baby life saved by my mother's water adult body spirit was given back. Psychic my whole life.

Nuclear heavens experiments by humans. Reason I was sick.

A circuit in vision was chasing me involving a metal boxed machine with a slit. The pope in my dream. Title is pope exact not a man's name. His man's woman theme causes life attacked was maths womb science zero. Nuclear.

Said that exact circuit involved the Pope who chased me. I was saved. The pope was speared killed in his side by golden rod.

I believe it is humanities owned predictive pope warning about end of life on earth by man's nuclear science causes.

As Jesus by terms took earths mass destruction closer to its mass held destruction. As God.

O God. The planet.

Jesus terms never were about held O God mass rock. As God. The life purpose is God O first.

The sun. Theme. No human was allowed to theory the sun. Said the father's founding the church. Healing.

Reason a human looks at another human. Sees the human exact in medical terms only. Exact the healer.

The sun owned planet earths origin position of attacked converted God mass. The exact reason why galileo was put in goal. Theming visionary machines.

Visions in nature were with bio the animals only and not machines. Why they said what was foretold he was theorising. By evil metals trying to return. In his visions.

His coded inherited science human man name...lie gaol.

Stephen Haw the king. Healthy man inherits life's sacrifice as a theist. It was his psychic adult life parent memory talking through the machine.

A recorded life recording of healthy man.

Proven by humans who pick up voices talking by man's designed machines.

Warned exactly.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
If there were no stories of Jesus after death sightings, Jesus would be forgotten as one of the many failed Messiahs.
You know, you're probably right. I wonder then about those people and religions that say the resurrection was only a symbolic resurrection. I don't see how that would have gotten anyone to believe in Jesus, since that would still mean that the resurrection was fictional. Now a fake resurrection, that was told to be as if were true, would be different. And a real resurrection? Forget about it. People would have been going crazy over it. And going crazy over seeing dead people walking the street of Jerusalem. But dd they? Are there any records that verify the NT stories of Jesus and other dead people coming back to life?
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Reply to post 699


If a whole heap of witnesses had the story of seeing and even speaking with Elvis that would be better.
If these people were threatened physically but refused to change their story, that would be even better.
Also with Jesus there is the witness of the promised Holy Spirit that was given and which brought gifts, some miraculous, to the church.
If I said in psychic gained messages I was human family and extended family life threatened would I be believed by the public?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
"Paul admits openly that his only source was visions"

Yes, Paul's only source was that he heard a voice, that did not make him any wise, it blinded him as he himself admits, later he gained his sight, but he lost insight for good, I understand. Instead of Jesus's, it could be the voice of Devil/Satan that Paul heard, it transpires.

Regards
_____________
6*43
Paul was blinded and healed through a Christian who had been sent by Jesus to heal him. (see Acts 9)
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
People die for their beliefs. People do not lightly die for things they know to be lies that they made up.
Okay.

What if I say you evil minded destroyer bastardry brothers history of man of science rich man wanted to do all human chosen only evils. You Say you are evil as a human thinker in your owned mind body. Yet didn't want to die? Yet theme anyone else's life removed but yours.

Your interactive father brother memories wanted my innocence aware to save you. Spiritually consciously. Means psyche. Mind contact.

You as a human say a human is evil. Your human thoughts not biology is evil. Known only by your thoughts. So we argue saying no human is evil. You argue knowing your thoughts are.

After all... my life body cell harm....then brain burnt suffering you think your self worthy of that caused coercive con?

I don't think so.

Father said you don't listen to your theist confession as men which is not a thesis.

You said you wanted Jesus to be God O earth rock.

Jesus was never god as stated. Rock.

You know what God mass converted Sacrificed meant.

So you try to con humans to believe they are a God and Jesus the term.

When born a human baby owns no name ever. Is exact. Innocent human. Parents give the human baby a human name.

A baby human can be named Jesus and not be bio life sacrificed is exactly known. Just a name only.

You then own a thesis where you claim earth will release it's particles...nuclear by gas spirit converting as the spirit of rock fused leaving.

As God.

Which is all of planets earth whole body mass.

Try to cause it get sink holes instead as earths mass is fused differently.

So here you are today trying to force planet earths mass to be only Jesus. Lying.

Not worthy are you!??

My death should be natural and not sacrificed or murdered.

You however use and own a humans evil man opinion only.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
People die for their beliefs. People do not lightly die for things they know to be lies that they made up.
People regularly die for beliefs. Those beliefs tend to contradict other belief. Dying for a belief is very very weak evdience.

Plus you may have bought into some fabricated stories. We do not know if anyone sentenced to death was given a chance to recant. People being persecuted for being Christian does not mean that they had chance to recant and did not.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You are absolutely right... I didn't source it. I saw that it had all the information so I posted it... my apologies.

Would you like me to get all the sources that is common knowledge? Happy to do so.

The information is correct but happy to do so.

Erhman has a noted anti-Bible stance. If that is your diet... I understand why you have the position.


No Ehrman does not have that stance. He has a "let me find the most reasonable version of the historical truth" stance. Just like if you read a history book on Hinduism you would not expect them to say "and Krishna actually appeared to Prince Arjuna and gave him divine advice. Or red a historicity monograph on Islam and expect to hear "then an OT angel came down from heaven, sent by Yahweh and gave updated to Muhammad".
Those are myths, not supported by ANY evidence. Of course there are people who believe they are literally real, same with Christianity. But again, there is no historical evidence that any God, demigod or supernatural thing ever happened. And there is endless evidence that all of the theology in all these religions is syncretic. It comes from other religions. Christianity is the most obvious being Hellenism and Persian.

Theologians or NT scholars are interested in the theology and what it means. They do not even try to think along the lines of "is this actually supported by evidence" or "could this theology come from older soutces?" Because Islamic, Hindu and Christian theologians have already decided their scripture is literally true and that's it. Many of the professors have signed an agreement that they will never speak against the theology.
Historians look at the actual evidence.
Ehrman, Carrier and Lataster are NT specialists.
Goodacre is the Synoptic Problem specialist
Purvoe does Acts
Elaine Pagels studies the Gnostic Gospels
Thompson worked on Moses and the Patriarchs
and many more, Crossan, Price, Fransesca Stravopolou is a Hebrew Bible specialist.

The early datings for Gospels is not supported by historians of most Christian scholarship. Because I care about what is true and I genuinely want to know I also study the apologetics as I mentioned. But none of those positions have passed peer-review and can be shown to be likely true.

But when a work comes out based on many scholars using known literary techniques to devise if a work was based on another work in some way, as well as general comparisons, analysis of literary devices and good evidence shows these sources were used (sometimes it's verbatim copying) and you ask for the information but then just go "oh God did that like that on purpose because it's a love letter", we are not really having a discussion.
If I made an assumption about God you would ask for scripture. But this assumption is not supported by scripture, most of the original apologists said it was because Satan went back in time and made the early religions look similar to fool Christians. So this isn't even 2nd century apologetics, which you suggested early knowledge was better because it was closer? So it doesn't make sense on any level.


Historians do not support the Gospel narratives at all. They understand this is mythology and want to find out what was going on at the time. My diet is finding out what is true. When apologists have to say scholars are wrong because they "don't believe" or are "liberal" or whatever it doesn't make sense at all. It's saying "but they don't believe so they won't use confirmation bias". A group who worships Zeus can say the same when reading about early Greek religions "these historians don't believe in Zeus, so they can't possibly interpret it correctly?"
Except many of the Christian scholars ARE believers? The article on the synoptic problem is written by a believer?
The paper on Genesis using older myths and legends was also by a Baptist pastor who is a historian. The fundamentalist position isn't supported by historians or mainstream Christian scholarship.

This was peer-reviewed
The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:

A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist

Jennifer Uzzell

February 2009

Early apologists admited similarities and blamed them on Satan.

Even allowing for these caveats, it is clear that substantial ideological and ritual similarities did exist. In fact they were sufficiently obvious to the early Christian apologists that they felt obliged to offer some explanation for them, particularly since, to their embarrassment, it was clear that the Mystery rituals predated their own. The most common explanation, offered by many Christian apologists including Firmicus Maternus, Tertullian and Justin Martyr, was that demons had deliberately prefigured Christian sacraments in order to lead people astray. This explanation has sufficed for Christians over countless centuries, and indeed scholastic bias towards the assumed uniqueness, primacy and superiority of Christianity is one of the major methodological pitfalls encountered by those engaged in the comparative study of Christianity and the Mysteries. Many Christian scholars have been so certain that Christianity alone, of all the world’s religions, is an original and unique revelation that at times it seems that they might almost prefer the “demonic intervention” explanation to the unthinkable possibility that Christianity was influenced by its philosophical and theological environs. This paper, however, will seek to explore and quantify the similarities and differences and to offer a more prosaic explanation for them as far as it is possible to do so at such a remove and in the light of the methodological difficulties discussed above.



-It is interesting that Celsus refers to Christianity and the “other mysteries”. Clearly he regards Christianity as a Mystery religion of a particularly low and degenerate sort. Even Augustine is forced to admit that Christians are not always morally distinguishable from the Pagans around them and Tertullian warns Christians that in matters of sexual conduct in particular, there are “heathens who may sit in judgement on you.” Julian is also deeply suspicious of Christian baptism which he understands as a licence to repeated immoral behaviour with confession and repentance as an “easy way out”.


The information is correct but happy to do so.

There are no fundamentalists papers that pass peer-review. The vast majority backs the common dating for the Gospels and so on. There are Islam fundamentalists also who insist on all sorts of apologetics that has been completely debunked as non-factual.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Even worse, most of, if not all of the "prophecies that he refers to are not prophecy at all. They are merely quote mines from the Old Testament where someone said "Hey! That verse taken out of context can kinda sorta sound like it is about Jesus". When one quote mines one's "prophecies" the odds of them being "fulfilled" can be as high as 1.
Yeah that is true also, they are vague or out of context. But we have excellent evidence that Mark was using all sorts of OT stories and arranging events into ring structure and other literary fiction devices. So of course he would continue the story as written?
Also how would copying and using fictive devices be a "love letter" from God?? So educated people will do analysis and see it's fiction and not actually history but re-writes of older tales, which they would then believe it to be myth? What kind of sick joke would that be?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
.


What parable? Romans didn't historically release prisoners like that?

Again.. I understand the diet you have would make you believe that.

Yes, historical facts, which I'm trying to present? No Romans didn't release prisoners like that, ever. Carrier sources Raymond Browns work on this. That is why it's a story? It would never happen, you are correct.
Here Mark is merging the sacrifices of Passover and Yom Kippur by having Jesus be a Yom Kippur sacrifice performed during Passover.
Barrabas means "son of the father". SO we have 2 sons of teh father. One is released into the wild mob containing the sins of Israel, while the other is sacrificed so his blood may atone for the sins of Israel.
The one who is released bears those sins literally, the other figuratively.
This is the Yom Kippur cerimony of Leviticus 16, 2 wild goats were released, one into the wild containing the sins of Israel, while the othes blood was shed to atone for the sins of Israel.
Mark is telling us, with his own parable, to reject the sins of the Jews and embrace instead the eternal salvation of atonement in Christ.

If this story appeared in any other book it would be readily identified as myth. The name Barabbas is improbably convenient, the ceremony is improbable, it lines up with Yom Kippur.
Both men named son of the father?????

.
Just because we have no evidence of a custom doesn't mean it didn't happen.

But you can believe it wasn't if you want.

There are no records of such events. Carrier is a historian of the Roman period as well. Sourcing Ray Brown we see a similar story from Babylon, Assyrian and Hittite Royal cult, involving a ceramony which a King would be symbolically punished in place of a pardoned prisoner, the King taking on the sins of the pardoned prisoner, freeing the prisoner and symbollically freeing the land from sin.

2 papers sources, R Brown and R Merritt - Jesus Barabbus and the Paschal Pardon, Journal of Biblical Literature.


.
So.. here I see nothing but your personal beliefs projected into Mark. In politics there are many reasons that one holds a position. Certainly the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herodians, with the Roman Empire breathing down their necks, there are many reasons why they wouldn't want Jesus on the scene,

But

You can believe it is false if you want.... I don't see it as such.[/QUOTE]

No this is the work of Jesus scholar Richard Carrier.



.
That is what happened.... you don't have to believe it, of course. I do.

Yes, Mark wrote a fictive narrative using Hellenistic and Persian theology and made a Jewish version. Brilliant myth-making.


For every Post Hole Digger that you can find, I will find a dozen PhD that disagree.

As far as "don't care what is true" - that's relative and cuts both ways.

Would you please find a PhD historian to back something you say up???

And no, I actually do care what is true. By all means present some good evidence. You imply I don't care yet your responses were:
magic thinking - a "love letter" from Yahweh
opinion - I disagree
belief - I believe

These are not representations of truth. I see them all the time in Islamic apologists and Hindu apologists. You are bending over backwards to avoid truth. Calling clear evidence of Mark using OT narratives a "love letter" and then thinking you are on any kind of epistemological foundation is simply not true.

(Bold) - if this was an attempt to demean or, for that matter, just to say that... it is childish, immature and irrelevant.

Ridiculous is still a matter of opinion. I don't agree.

Uh, no, you baited me into thinking you actually cared about sources and then went and posted a no-source, no-author webpage? The it's about statistics when you know full well that isn't evidence? Historians have excellent evidence Mark used Paul, OT and other sources. Undeniable in some places. SO we know he may have simply made up a narrative and had the main character fulfill the prophecies? You have to first establish there is SOME probability that any of this is true. No evidence to that end has been presented beyond "I believe it".

Right, so do Mormons believe Joe Smith received revelations and Muhammad got updates on Christianity. That gets us nowhere.

SO you don't think that asking for a proper source (several times) and then countering by presenting a page of statistics by no author, no qualifications, no source, degree, peer-review on a subject that is incredibly unlikely or at least has NO evidence for? That seems ridiculous.
If I asked you for scholarship and then I turned around and linked to Joeseph Atwells "research documentary book" about how he's "proven" Jesus was a creation of the 3rd century Roman Empire, that would be ridiculous. I am looking for what is true not what someone wants to believe is true. Or a false narrative people are selling as true.


Let's take a position outside of your box.

You haven't demonstrated I'm in a box? I'm giving expert scholarship opinion. I'm showing you the theology existed earlier, in the 2 cultures who occupied the Hebrew land, what box is this?

If you were debating with someone that Islam was not actually real, no angel Gabrielle was sent to give updates, are you in a box with that?



What if it was fulfilled prophesy and that every time the Gospels says "that it might be fulfilled by that which the prophets spoke of" and that the quoted saying of Jesus is true that "The prophets, Moses and Psalms spoke of me" - you would still look at it as "created" and not true. So, do we really have a discussion or are we both simply "this is what I believe". I think the latter would be correct?

This isn't what "I " believe? This is the vast amounts of empirical evidence demonstrating what is most likely true. Mark used the Psalms verbatim?
Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Islam also has "prophecies" that "prove" it's real?
Moses is considered a literary creation by the majority of OT scholars. The stories are from Egyptian myths. Getting laws on stone from a deity is an ancient myth found in many older religions.
There had to be some reason to believe something is true.
If a Muslim asked you to consider the prophecies as true or fulfilled, can you? Then what?

Generally, Moses is seen as a legendary figure, whilst retaining the possibility that Moses or a Moses-like figure existed in the 13th century BCE.[14][15][16][17][18]v. 5 sources.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
OK... I see where you stand and how you look at it. I don't see it that way.

The question would be why is that?

There are some facts that cannot be denied but you certainly haven't enumerated them.

This was about the Synoptic Problem I believe. The facts are given here as to why Mark is the source, or the Markan Priority is the solution.
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Inexplicable as a personal viewpoint. I'm sure Mark was fine with it.

(1) The argument from length. Although Mark’s Gospel is shorter, it is not an abridgment, nor a gospel built exclusively on Matthew-Luke agreement. In fact, where its pericopae parallel Matthew and/or Luke, Mark’s story is usually the longest. The rich material left out of his gospel is inexplicable on the Griesbach hypothesis.

That was just one point, to understand the point obviously it takes further reading into the G hypothesis, it's covered in the book sourced.

QUOTE="KenS, post: 7786646, member: 47847"]

One of the problems we encounter is that we tend to imprint our customs to that of the Jewish culture of their time. An error.

They didn't have "plagiarism" at that time. Custom was that you did build on what someone else said. If adding to it improved the message - I'm sure they said "great".

In that they DID add to it, validates that what Mark said was true.[/QUOTE]

Oh boy. No, scholars who work on this spend years learning the languages and customs of the time? They study all the material from the time for comparison. I suspect here you are making stuff up. No scholar has ever said those things about the Gospels. It isn't called plagarism it's called religious syncretism. It is widely believed that each author was not trying to make another Gospel but was writing THE Gospel.
Matthew wanted a return to Jewish customs. There were 40 known Gospels that were whittled down to 5, then 4 in 365 A.D. Each author did think they could improve it and took Mark and went about it.

The 4 churches who were in the most political favor in 300 A.D. were chosed by Constantine and their Gospels were combined. The Nicean Council started this process. The 2nd century was at least 50% Gnostic and all types of different sects with different beliefs.
This is what the 2nd century looked like -
These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

"Difficulty" is a viewpoint. I didn't see any "difficulties". Difficulty is in the eye of the beholder?


3. MARK’S HARDER READINGS
There are several passages in Mark which paint a portrait of Jesus (or the disciples, etc.) that could be misunderstood. These passages have been altered in either Matthew or Luke or both on every occasion. It is the conviction of many NT scholars that this category is a very strong blow to the Griesbach hypothesis—and one which has not been handled adequately by Matthean prioritists.29 Among the several possible passages which scholars have noticed, the following are particularly impressive to me. Still, the cumulative effect is what makes the biggest impression.

(1) 30 But this ignores the verbs used, for Mark suggests inability on Jesus’ part, while Matthew simply indicates unwillingness (οὐκ ἐδύνατο vs. οὐκ ἐποίησεν). Cf. also 31

(3) Mark 3:5/Luke 6:10—“he looked around at them with anger/he looked around on them all.” Matthew omits the verse entirely, though he includes material both before and after it (12:12-13). That Luke would omit a statement regarding Jesus’ anger is perfectly understandable.

(4) Mark 1:12/Matt 4:1/Luke 4:1—“the Spirit drove him into the desert” (Mark)/ “Jesus was led into the desert by the Spirit” (Matthew and Luke). Mark uses the very harsh ἐκβάλλω, while Matthew and Luke use (ἀν)άγω, a much gentler term, to describe the Spirit’s role in bringing Jesus to the desert for temptation.


So? Why does there have to be verbal agreements? and why are we comparing? First you say it is wrong to say what the other said and then you turn around and say they aren't saying what the other said? Speaking with two sides of the mouth?

Verbal agreements between Matthew and Luke. It hinders one hypothesis and backs up another. The comparisons are to determine if Mark was THE source or if there were those "Q", and "M" gospels which have fallen out of favor. Mark Goodacre has furthered this study and given the strongest evidence. I linked to his work.


So it suggests Mark was the source for Matthew and Luke. SO we know where Matthew and Luke wrote their stories from. You are reading bullet points? If you want to understand the scholarship you have to look deeper. If you care about the logic and methods used then you look into it. If you don't care then don't.


so... you wanted them to get together and speak like each other?

I don't think you understand this even a little. They are attempting to find evidence that shows what sources were used. Non-fundamentalist scholars long ago realized these were sourced from other material. This is their work and how they understand who sourced who. Q and M are no longer needed as sources.

OBVIOUSLY, you are set in what you believe.

Never. I believe in what is true. Not what I want to be true. I have had to face facts that my theology was simply not real. I'm always open to evidence that warrants belief.
Christians do like to say, when I was in the church - "you want to look into it, go study, go ahead, learn the history!" "You will see". And when it wasn't what they were expecting its' all kinds of backlash, every possible angle. But never any open mindedness, "so what did you learn?" Just "nope"....."don't care, not true (liberal, Satan, atheist, )
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I really don't have any problem with you believing that. But I will also acknowledge that there are a plethora of PhD, historians, theologians, et a who would disagree with you (as I do)

:)

So let's live our merry lives with our world view application and love each other!

Yes I agree with the good sentiments.
but I haven't seen any historians who think that way? Theologians in Islam and Christianity do but they start out with the assumption that it's true. For every Christian theologian there is an Islamic theologian who knows Muhammad has the true religion and Christians and Jews are infidels. Yes it says that? So that is clear evidence that theology is not a good path to truth.
You have to have evidence something is true. Actual evidence not scripture that says Muhammad regularly spoke with Gabrielle and now has the new version of Yahwehs message and anecdotal evidence of followers who "feel it" or claims of people witnessing it but only in scripture?

I argue for critical thinking. Not for atheism.

This is where historians are at with historicity:


When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.

Here I will summarize the best arguments for historicity and the logic behind the best case for it. And this only means mundane historicity; not the Gospel Jesus, but the Jesus of honest mainstream scholarship. I am most interested in finding out if I have left any good arguments out. So please add more in comments, if any you think remain that aren’t ridiculous and can be taken seriously by mainstream experts. Likewise if you think the logic of any argument I do present can be better formulated.


the article by Dr Carrier sums up the arguments from apologists
Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Reply to post 342


The evidence that the Church had when they accepted Paul (the one who had been persecuting them) is the story of Paul's blindness and subsequent healing through Ananias. (Acts 9:10-19)
But of course you do not accept that story without evidence because it is also has supernatural elements.



The first preaching at Pentecost (Acts 2) has Peter proclaiming the resurrection.


The scholarship on Acts being historical fiction is overwhelmingly excellent.

seminar by PhD historian, specialist in NT

peer-reviewed from R. Purvoe
https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Acts-Unraveling-Its-Story/dp/159815012X


blog post using Dennis McDonald, Thomas Brodie and a few other historians work on Acts:

The Book of Acts as Historical Fiction


There are many many lines of evidence on this

Overall, Acts just shares far too many features with popular adventure novels that were written during the same period, in order to lend it any trust as history. Here’s an overview of those features:

1) They all promote a particular god or religion.
2) They are all travel narratives.
3) They all involve miraculous or amazing events.
4) They all include encounters with fabulous or exotic people.
5) They often incorporate a theme of chaste couples that are separated and then reunited.
6) They all feature exciting narratives of captivities and escapes.
7) They often include themes of persecution.
8) They often include episodes involving excited crowds.
9) They often involve divine rescues from danger.
10) They often have divine revelations which are integral to the plot

Since Acts shares all of these features and thus looks exactly like an ancient novel of the period, there is simply no good reason to assume that all of the parallels it has with other literary sources are merely historical coincidences. Rather, we should conclude that they are in fact what they have been shown to be: literary constructs and other elements of fiction.
Although it is implied in the preface of the book of Acts that it is supposed to be some kind of historical account, this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, Acts has been thoroughly discredited as nothing more than a work of apologetic historical fiction, and the scholarship of Richard Pervo conclusively demonstrates this to be the case. Regarding any historical sources that Luke may have used for Acts, the only one that has been confirmed with any probability was that of Josephus (a person who never wrote about Jesus Christ nor Christianity, yet was likely used by Luke for background material), and although there may have been more historical sources than Josephus, we simply don’t have any evidence preserved from those other possible historians to make a case one way or the other. All of the other sources that we can discern within Acts are literary sources, not historical ones. Included in these literary sources is what may possibly have been a (now-lost) hagiographical fabrication, and basically a rewrite of the Elijah-Elisha narrative in some of the Old Testament (OT) texts of Kings, although placing Paul and Jesus in the main roles instead, which obviously would have been a literary source of historical fiction (not any kind of historical account).

The scholar Thomas Brodie has argued that this evident reworking of the Kings narrative starts in Luke’s Gospel and continues on until Acts chapter 15, thus indicating that Luke either integrated this literary creation into his story or he used an underlying source text, such as some previous Gospel that not only covered the acts of Jesus but also the acts of the apostles. So it appears that Luke either used this source text or his own literary idea and then inserted more stories into it, effectively expanding the whole story into two books, while also utilizing some material from Mark and Matthew during the process (and potentially other now-lost Gospels) and some material from the epistles of Paul. In any case, the unnamed source text mentioned thus far is a hypothetical one that can only be inferred to have existed from the evidence of what’s written in Acts. Luckily, the remaining literary sources that scholars can discern Luke used are indeed sources we actually have and thus can directly compare to and analyze.

As an example, the scholar Dennis MacDonald has shown that Luke also reworked fictional tales written by Homer, replacing the characters and some of the outcomes as needed to suit his literary purposes. MacDonald informs us in his The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul (New Testament Studies, 45, pp. 88-107) that:...........
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If the authors of the gospels would have been the liars that you claim they were, they would have omitted those details

For example if woman where not considered reliable witnesses why inventing that women witnessed the empty tomb?............ if I want to invent (and lie about) a story why would I claim that my 3yo daughter is the principal witness of the ghost? …. People consider 3yo children unreliable witness, so why not lying and inventing a better witness.


But granted we “don’t know for sure “ that the authors where no lying so by your standards you won the argument.


Because several reasons. One is Marks theme was "the least shall be first"

The parables of Jesus are also full of the reversal of expectation theme (Mark 4:30-32, 7:15, 8:35, 10:29-30, 10:44, 12:1-11), and as I already noted, Mark explicitly agrees with the program of concealing the truth behind parables (Mark 4:11-12, 33-34). And so, the empty tomb story is probably itself a parable (just as John Dominic Crossan argues Mark’s entire Gospel is in The Power of Parable), which accordingly employs reversal of expectation as its theme. The tomb has to be empty, in order to confound the expectations of the reader, just as a foreign Simon must carry the cross, a Sanhedrist must bury the body, and women (not men) must be the first to hear the Good News.

This is also why, contrary to all expectation, Jesus is anointed for burial before he dies (14:3), which is meant to summon our attention when the women go to anoint him after his death (16:1), not understanding it’s already happened, and only to find their (and our) expectations reversed by finding his body missing, and a young man in his place—and this with an explicit verbal link to the exchange of one thing for another in Ecclesiastes 4:15—for both Mark and Ecclesiastes speak of walking under the sun and seeing the youth who “stands in place” of the king, just as this youth does in Mark—and just as Mark’s tomb door is explicitly linked with another reversal-of-expectation narrative in Genesis, regarding the fate of Jacob at the well. The expectation is even raised that the tomb will be closed (Mark 16:3), which is yet another deliberate introduction of an expectation that Mark will then foil.

Just as reversal of expectation lies at the heart of the teachings of Jesus—indeed, of the very gospel itself—so it is quite natural for Mark to structure his narrative around such a theme, too. This program leads him to ‘create’ thematic events that thwart the reader’s expectation, and an empty tomb is exactly the sort of thing an author would invent to serve that aim. After all, it begs credulity to suppose that so many convenient reversals of expectation actually happened. It’s more credible to suppose that at least some of them are narrative inventions; and probably, all of them. One such invention could easily be the empty tomb. And as we saw above, an empty tomb would have made a tremendously powerful parabolic symbol, rich with meaning. And all the evidence lines up with Mark having constructed it for exactly such a purpose. None stands against.


The women are also symbolic
The Women
Even the names of the women in Mark’s empty tomb tale are likely symbolic. Salome is the feminine of Solomon, an obvious symbol of supreme wisdom and kingship. Wisdom was often portrayed as a feminine being (Sophia), so to have her represented here behind a symbolic name rich with the same meaning is not unusual. Mariam (the name we now translate as Mary) was famously the sister of Moses and Aaron, who played several key roles in the legendary escape from Egypt, including her connection with that famous well of salvation that acquired her name, and being the one who led the Hebrew women in song after their deliverance from Egypt—and Egypt was frequently used in ancient Jewish literature as a symbol of the Land of the Dead, just as crossing the wilderness into Palestine symbolized the process of salvation, escaping from death into Paradise.

But Mark gives us two Mary’s, representing two aspects of this legendary role. “Magdalene” is a variant Hellenization of the Hebrew for “tower,” the same exact word transcribed as Magdôlon in the Septuagint—in other words the biblical Migdol, representing the borders of Egypt, and hence of Death. In Exodus 13, the Hebrews camped near Migdol to lure the Pharaoh’s army to their doom, after which “they passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness three days” (Numbers 33:7-8), just as Jesus had done, on their way to the “twelve springs and seventy palm trees” of Elim (33:9), just as we know the gospel would be spread by twelve disciples and—according to Luke 10:1-17—seventy missionaries. Meanwhile, “Mary the mother of Jacob” (many don’t know it, but “James” is simply Jacob in the original languages, not a different name) is an obvious reference to the Jacob, of Jacob’s well, whose connection we already see Mark intended. This Jacob is of course better known as Israel himself.

So these two Marys in Mark represent Egypt and Israel, one literally the Mother of Israel; the other, the harbinger of escape from the land of the dead. Thus they represent (on the one side) the borders of the Promised Land and the miraculous defeat of death needed to get across, and (on the other side) the founding of a new nation, a New Israel—both linked to each other, through the sister of the first savior, Moses, and Aaron (the first High Priest), and mediated by Wisdom (Salome).

Another clue that these women are symbolic is the fact that they don’t exist in Mark’s story at all except on three symbolically connected occasions: they attend the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Jesus—the very events Mark adapts from that sequence of three Psalms (though Salome is omitted from the burial: Mark 15:40, 15:47, 16:1). In Mark’s Gospel we never hear of any of these women until then, not once in the entire ministry of Jesus. Nor are any of them explained (who are they? why are they there?). They simply appear, serve their mythical function, and vanish (none exist in Acts, either, after Acts 1 when the public history of the church begins in Acts 2; they do not appear to have ever been historical).

All this seems a highly improbable coincidence, there being exactly three women, with exactly these names, appearing exactly three times (that Mark’s fabrications tended to love the deployment of patterns of three I demonstrate in Chapter 10.4 of Historicity), which evoke exactly those scriptures, and triangulate in exactly this way, serving no other purpose and given no other explanation, all simply to convey an incredibly convenient message about the Gospel and the status of Christ as Messiah and miraculous victor over the Land of the Dead. What are the odds?

Maybe you’re not as impressed by all these coincidences as I am. But you don’t have to agree with my analysis of the evident symbolism of these women. The only thing that matters is that this interpretation cannot be ruled out—there’s no evidence against it, and some evidence for it. Mark even tells us he expressly approves of concealing symbolic meanings behind seemingly mundane narratives (see Mark 4:11-12, 33-34), and the names and events of this narrative fit the deeper meaning of the Gospel with surprising convenience.

These details therefore provide an available motive to invent a visit to the tomb by women, especially these particular women, which means we cannot assume the Christians would instead have invented a visit by men first. We cannot demonstrate that they would. For inventing a visit by women carried even more meaningful symbolism, and was even more in accordance with the Gospel message itself. It therefore cannot be said Mark had “no reason” to contrive these women as the finders of the tomb. We have no evidence these women ever existed before his invention of them. And we have no evidence he names them for any other reason than their symbolic role in the text.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Just to be clear I am taking that your view is the “legend hypothesis” you claim that the legend hypothesis is better than the resurrection hypothesis (please if I am wrong correct me)

The legend hypothesis states that Jesus was just a nice guy with some followers, he died and resurrected in a symbolic way (something like Jesus now lives in our hearts) this story was told generation after generation for centuries, and slowly but surely this “symbolic resurrection” started to became a physical resurrection.

Something like Santa Clause, who started as a priest that helped children but after many generations he became a fat guy who lives in the north pole and provides gifts to everybody.

Is this your view? If not please correct me so that I can have a correct version of your view (I don’t want to straw man you)


YOu know that dying/rising savior demigods were already in religions. Saviors and salvation is from Hellenism and the Greeks occupied Israel for 2 centuries before Christianity???

Hellenism -
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.

-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.

-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.

Pre-Jesus dying/rising savior demigods
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

The myths were about a Jewish version. Mark solidified the myth with an excellent story. Complete with all sorts of hidden parables and fictive devices.

Historians believe there was a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus who was used as a model for the myth. He might have also been executed? Other scholars think it's all myth. The actual resurrection is as likely as Muhammad getting revelations from Gabrielle or Joe Smith meeting Moroni and getting golden plates.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
We have far more information that he existed than Shakespeare wrote his plays.

But I understand why you don't want him to exist.

No we actually don't. Paul saw visions. 1 lifetime (people lived average to 38 then) later the Gospels, highly mythic fiction sourcing OT and other sources leaving no room for oral tradition. Also the myth already existed in many religions.
All historical mentions are referencing people who follow the gospels. The scholarship on Josephus since 2104 is clear that it's a forgery and a different James. That's it. It is a myth that we have more evidence fro Jesus than Alexander the Great or Sharespeare.



2. “Scholars know that Jesus existed.”

Scholars claim that. But based on what?

The evidence sucks. I mean, really sucks.

So why are scholars saying such absurd hyperbolic things like “the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus’ existence” (Paul Maier)?

This is cause for very deep suspicion (OHJ, pp. 21-26).

Hence, now that a peer reviewed book has been published by a major academic biblical studies press challenging this consensus, and the emperor has been found to have no clothes, it’s time to address the evidence, and to stop just repeating what past experts have been hyperbolically asserting. The claim that Jesus didn’t exist is now “on the table of historical scholarship.” And it has seven fully qualified experts admitting the historicity of Jesus is uncertain. Even the renowned biblical scholar Philip Davies said, “a recognition that [Jesus’s] existence is not entirely certain would nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability.”

3. “Jesus’s crucifixion is historically certain”

Bishop bases this on his assertion that “there are many independent sources that attest to Jesus’ crucifixion.” That assertion is false. Christian apologists are confusing the word “independent” with the word “different.” A hundred different sources attest to the existence of Hercules. But they are not independent sources. They all derive, directly or indirectly, from the same single source, a myth about Hercules. Who never existed.

There is in fact only one explicit source for the historicity of Jesus: the Gospel of Mark. All other sources that mention the crucifixion of Jesus as an event in earth history derive that mention from Mark, either directly (e.g. Matthew, Luke, John; Celsus; Justin; etc.) or indirectly, as Christians simply repeat the same claims in those Gospels, which all embellish and thus derive from that same one Gospel, Mark, and their critics simply believed them because they would have thought it was too self-damning to make up, and because there was no way for them to check.
When Paul mentions the crucifixion of Jesus, he never places that event on earth. In fact, he doesn’t appear to even know about it having happened at the hands of Romans or Jews at all, but the demonic forces of evil (OHJ, ch. 11.4, 11.7-8), just as was originally said in the Christian Gospel known as the Ascension of Isaiah (OHJ, ch. 3.1).

Hence even if they actually mentioned Jesus (and this is actually doubtful: OHJ, ch. 8.9-10), Tacitus and Josephus are just repeating what Christians told them (or their informants), and those Christians were just repeating what the Gospels told them, and the Gospels are just repeating the story that first appeared in only one place: Mark. That’s not independent evidence. It’s useless.

Note that Bishop naively again cites the Talmud here as well. Which besides double-counting evidence (an obvious fallacy of reasoning), exposes his ignorance yet again, per my remarks about this source above: the Talmud records Jesus was stoned, not killed by crucifixion. He was “hung” only in the manner prescribed by Torah law: in Jewish law the corpse of all executed convicts was always to be hung up for display until sundown. Notably, if you count that as a crucifixion (and well you could), you now have to admit that it may also have been the only death Paul knew of as well, and thus we can no longer establish that Paul was referring to a Roman execution. He could even have been referring to the cosmic one portrayed in the Ascension of Isaiah. We can’t tell. Our only source attempting to tell us is Mark. A purely literary work of outlandish mythography (OHJ, ch. 10.4).

This means the crucifixion of Jesus is no better attested than the labors of Hercules.

That’s a problem. Don’t you think?

4. “The Gospels”

“This should actually count for four reasons to accept Jesus’ existence as each Gospel is an independent account of his life.” Nope. See above. Every Gospel is just an embellished redaction of Mark. Even John (OHJ, ch. 10.7).

5. “The disciples’ deaths.”

There are no reliable sources for the disciples’ deaths. We have, at most, some ridiculous and late legends, based on no identifiable sources. We do not in fact know why or when they died. Or what they died for. This whole argument is therefore hosed from top to bottom.who is lying to him.
18. “Josephus refers to Jesus, twice”

No, he almost certainly did not (OHJ, ch. 8.9). And even if he did, he used the Gospels as his source. So he can provide no independent evidence.

19. “Cornelius Tacitus refers to Jesus”

Actually, he probably didn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.10). And even if he did, he used Christians repeating the Gospels as his source (ibid.). So, he can provide no independent evidence.

20. “Suetonius mentions Jesus”

No, he doesn’t (OHJ, ch. 8.11)...................and so on
41 Reasons We're, Like, Totes Sure Jesus Existed! • Richard Carrier
 
Top