• 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!

Was Jesus Only Human?

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
! Thess. is not an outside independent source that may be testimony for the Resurrection, and Paul did not witness the resurrection.
You said, "The Resurrection story exists only in gospel accounts, and has absolutely no corroborating writings nor evidence outside the gospels..." 1 Thess. is not a gospel. It does, however, corroborate the gospel resurrection accounts. Therefore, your statement that the story only exists in gospel accounts is refuted. It is outside the gospels -- indeed, was written before the gospels, so your statement that there is no evidence outside the gospels is refuted. Doesn't matter that Paul did not witness the resurrection. That wasn't one of the parameters you set in your statement.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
All of the above remains hypothetical without confirming documents. The dates are far from 'certainty.' Of course Evangelical Christians have a habit of moving the decimal point beyond the actual evidence.
"Hypothetical" is immaterial. There are no confirming documents for any of the biblical texts. They could all just be made up horse crap. Or not. We can only work from what we have, and what we have is evidence of such an early writing -- and we have Thomas.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
"Hypothetical" is immaterial. There are no confirming documents for any of the biblical texts. They could all just be made up horse crap. Or not. We can only work from what we have, and what we have is evidence of such an early writing -- and we have Thomas.

The problem of hypothetical claims going back much before 50 CE is relevant.

I do not belief all false, nor all true based on witnesses, The reality is somewhere in between in the form of evolved text.

I do not believe there is significant evidence for earlier writings before the Jewish revolt.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The problem of hypothetical claims going back much before 50 CE is relevant.

I do not belief all false, nor all true based on witnesses, The reality is somewhere in between in the form of evolved text.

I do not believe there is significant evidence for earlier writings before the Jewish revolt.
I find the common passages between Thomas and Q especially compelling for sources — either written or oral — by about the year 40. It’s unclear whether Q was a text or an oral source. But it was a source, and there is evidence that it’s prior to 50 CE.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I love the Mark story! I especially like the way the original ends in a cliffhanger: They fled the tomb, for they were terrified. The End.

Experts claim it was written post-70, because it mentions the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. But, as with Most Things Biblical, nothing's 100% for sure -- there are just too many gaps of information available.

It's my best source for a clear description of events, even though it was fiddled with. The background of Temple and priesthood corruption, the sacrificial and currency exchange fiddles, the Baptist's views about it all and how he showed his disgust, the outrageous Temple coin design, the human elements such as the people taking John's redemption (which saved them so much money!), his arrest, Jesus picking up the campaign and trying to take it forward....... which leads in to his comments such as the destruction of the whole nasty thing..... which was an early sign of what was to come.

Yeah...... it seems 'about right' to me.

And although I do not value the other gospels in the same way, they ALL have content which describes individuals, happenings, situations, incidents and speeches which I think are probably real........

It's interesting that they all include some (a few) passages which DON'T HELP the Christianity theme, and I take special notice of these because they probably are true in some way.

The above, when viewed together with the geography, the available archaeology, the inter provincial politics, the tensions between local leaders, the dialects, the available history about peasant livelihoods, taxation, etc etc, can produce a picture which I find to be quite different from the ideas of all those differing and contentious experts, professors, etrc.

The best book that I have read about the Jesus story was that of Geza Vermes, whereas Crosson's fixation with Roman patronage does seem to help throw light upon what the priesthood was doing whilst not offering any help for Galileans living under the authority of a Jewish Tetrarchy. Crosson's 'magic for meal' stuff is beneath the man Jesus, that I have found was so very capable, efficient and worthy of picking up the Baptist's cause.

It's a bloomin' jigsaw puzzle, and it's not fair because somebody took so many pieces out of the box, and put bits in that came from somewhere else.

I often wonder why I keep on bothering, but then I find that I cannot put it down. :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I think Jesus was a man and only a man. He was above all else an observant Jew. Like most in his day, he had his opinions on Torah, and it was quite the tradition back then to argue about how best to observe Torah; Jesus did exactly that. He had enough charisma to have a small following, but was not special enough to even be mentioned in the Talmud.
It was a huge following. probably built up by the Baptist.
Imagine stopping the masses of people journeying South to the Temple and telling them that they could receive redemption and cleansing for free, without going near the Temple......... people then did what people would do now, they would flock to him for that, and that is exactly why he had to be arrested and the movement bust up Temple takings would have been falling away and the resident's takings for bed and board would be well down.

And I don't expect that the events would have been favourably recorded in any Jewish history! :)

It was Paul who turned the movement into a major religion by spreading it to Gentiles.
That's different..... Paul mangled it in to a movement quite different from what Jesus or Baptist intended.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I find the common passages between Thomas and Q especially compelling for sources — either written or oral — by about the year 40. It’s unclear whether Q was a text or an oral source. But it was a source, and there is evidence that it’s prior to 50 CE.

Have you got a G-Thomas that is clear? The ones I dug out of the internet were transliterations........ rather difficult.

And have you got G-Q se;parated out from G-Matthew and G-Luke?

Please?
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

*banned*
Do you know what the Temple Mount is? It’s more than just the mosque. Jews are allowed on the Temple Mount, and, while there is a restriction, that restriction is enforced by... Jews. I’d be willing to bet that more than one Jew has uttered prayer there since ‘67 and gotten away with it. I don’t understand why you maintain that Israel isn’t under Jewish occupation.

The Temple Mount is under the control of the Islamic Waqf. Israel is there to enforce what the Waqf allows. The whole area of course is in Israel's hands, but it can't do what it wants to with it. Prayer by Jews is not allowed on the Temple Mount. They have to go the Western Wall.

The same is true with Jerusalem. Legally it all belongs to Israel. But in reality, it doesn't. The eastern part belongs to the Palestinians who want to make it their capital. Any move by Israel to take over the eastern part is met with opposition by the PLO and the U.N. See U.N. Security Council Resolution 478.

Jerusalem is still under the heel of the Gentiles.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
The Temple Mount is under the control of the Islamic Waqf. Israel is there to enforce what the Waqf allows. The whole area of course is in Israel's hands, but it can't do what it wants to with it. Prayer by Jews is not allowed on the Temple Mount. They have to go the Western Wall.

The same is true with Jerusalem. Legally it all belongs to Israel. But in reality, it doesn't. The eastern part belongs to the Palestinians who want to make it their capital. Any move by Israel to take over the eastern part is met with opposition by the PLO and the U.N. See U.N. Security Council Resolution 478.

Jerusalem is still under the heel of the Gentiles.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Israel should not be permitted to take over Jerusalem.:mad:
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
The Resurrection story exists only in gospel accounts, and has absolutely no corroborating writings nor evidence outside the gospels, therefore it is not a well documented event in history.

Gosh, how did all those Jews and proselytes get saved, until the Roman Empire turned Christian?

Don't answer, I'm being rhetorical, you know over a dozen ancient historians said early Christians preached the resurrection from the dead.

PS. The resurrection of Christ is corroborated in multiple OT accounts, aka "prophecy"!
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Depends? You may believe so on 'faith, but actually no by the evidence the gospels were not written by the apostles, and dated after 65 CE. There is absolutely no evidence of the gospels before this.



Just assertions based on faith without evidence, your claim is about as good as the claim Napoleon won the battle of Waterloo.
The claim is based on the fact that people disagree on this matter and will always do so.

The Gospels were written within the likely lifetimes of the Apostles. Letters written by members of the immediate Post Apostolic church, circa 120-130 AD confirm this.

Polycarp, who knew a teacher who studied under the Apostle John, confirms Johns gospel was written by John, and was accurate.
 

JJ50

Well-Known Member
Gosh, how did all those Jews and proselytes get saved, until the Roman Empire turned Christian?

Don't answer, I'm being rhetorical, you know over a dozen ancient historians said early Christians preached the resurrection from the dead.

PS. The resurrection of Christ is corroborated in multiple OT accounts, aka "prophecy"!
Name one?
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
I find the common passages between Thomas and Q especially compelling for sources — either written or oral — by about the year 40. It’s unclear whether Q was a text or an oral source. But it was a source, and there is evidence that it’s prior to 50 CE.

It's always amusing that skeptics always want to kick the Gospels to the curb but they revere the mythical "Q" source, for which there is zero manuscript or traditional evidence for.

Regarding "Q":

The Case Against Q: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm (10 Reasons to Question Q)

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q. One of the big ones is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. And according to Acts 1:3 Jesus spent forty days with them, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. They may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught. He's the PRIMARY source. Q is not necessary.

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
You (shunyadragon) said, "The Resurrection story exists only in gospel accounts, and has absolutely no corroborating writings nor evidence outside the gospels..." 1 Thess. is not a gospel. It does, however, corroborate the gospel resurrection accounts. Therefore, your statement that the story only exists in gospel accounts is refuted. It is outside the gospels -- indeed, was written before the gospels, so your statement that there is no evidence outside the gospels is refuted. Doesn't matter that Paul did not witness the resurrection. That wasn't one of the parameters you set in your statement.

The resurrection is also mentioned in Acts and 1 Corinthians 15.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It's always amusing that skeptics always want to kick the Gospels to the curb but they revere the mythical "Q" source, for which there is zero manuscript or traditional evidence for.

Regarding "Q":

The Case Against Q: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm (10 Reasons to Question Q)

The Case Against Q: A Synoptic Problem Web Site by Mark Goodacre

The Case Against Q: Fallacies at the Heart of Q

There's simpler explanations than having to posit the mythical Q. One of the big ones is that Matthew and Peter and John most likely sat around campfires after Jesus' resurrection and recalled what Jesus said and did. And according to Acts 1:3 Jesus spent forty days with them, no doubt recalling for them the numerous teachings and acts of his ministry. They may have even taken notes on parchment to be used later in their separate Gospels. In addition, in John 14 John clearly cites the Holy Spirit as helping him recall what Jesus taught. He's the PRIMARY source. Q is not necessary.

John 14:26 - "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

That's the source skeptics ALWAYS sweep under the rug because they can't stand to admit the supernatural.
First, there’s no evidence to show that the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus. None of the narrators makes use of “we” language. Second, all evidence points to later writing by anonymous writers. Third, writing was extremely rare in that time and place. There’s no reason to suspect that the disciples in question were literate. Fourth, even had the written stuff down, it would not have been on parchment. Parchment was prohibitively expensive and was used only by kings and the Empire for legal notices. Fifth, John isn’t a synoptic. Q doesn’t appear in John. Seventh, the process of literary criticism does not, by definition, take the supernatural into account. Criticism is evidentiary in nature, and there’s no evidence for the supernatural. That’s why it’s “supernatural.”
 
Top