The Christian topic  permalink

Jesus never existed

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 100 of 232
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by aisok (U13765880) on Sunday, 14th March 2010



    if someone tells me they have recently witnesses someone walk on liquid water - i hardly need to know their name to realise it is a crock

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010



    if someone tells me they have recently witnesses someone walk on liquid water - i hardly need to know their name to realise it is a crock 


    The latter then.

    Why couldn't you simply say that? smiley - erm

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    >>No, it simply shows that what we believe from reading the Bible is dependant purely on the accuracy of the translation, and not in the accurate word of God.<<


    And what exactly do you know about translation and back translation and are you able to read Greek; if not, you have no comment to make!

    Please take these factors into consideration!

    By the way, just who are "we"?

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by SusanDoris (U2850104) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    True - it has developed. You're helping me work though a number of doubts I've had recently about me as a Christian and, to be honest, these discussions are making me realise that my days as a server are over. I've been going through the motions and its just fear of disappointing people that stops me moving on. 
    Don't let anything stop you moving on. It can be done with tact and skill so that friendships and affection are strenghened not weakened. Your own confidence and positive attitude will deserve - and get, I am sure - respect as well as maintaining harmony.
    Have a browse around the internet for 'assertion training' - which can be summed up as saying and doing what you want to without causing upset, or anger etc; instead, as I say, it produces increased respect and harmony.

    Susan

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by Wonderer (U14340380) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Perhaps now is a time to put aside this service to you community and explore what your faith means to you (if anything at all) 
    I think that's good advice.

    I can no longer feel that presence as I used to. And I think that it was only in my imagination. I see Christians acting worse than atheists and atheists acting better than Christians. On top of that, the more I read the Bible looking for inspiration, the more holes and inconsistencies I see.

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 42.

    Posted by diksleksik (U14059681) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Hi Wonderer
    True - it has developed. You're helping me work though a number of doubts I've had recently about me as a Christian and, to be honest, these discussions are making me realise that my days as a server are over. I've been going through the motions and its just fear of disappointing people that stops me moving on. 
    I'm relatively new to the Atheist way of thinking and in recovery from religion.smiley - biggrin
    There are some good people on this site both Theist and Atheist and many of your questions will get answered.
    Just stick with YOUR search, not anyone else's agenda, and you will find what will make you happy.
    Have fun
    dik

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    I think that's good advice.

    I can no longer feel that presence as I used to. And I think that it was only in my imagination. I see Christians acting worse than atheists and atheists acting better than Christians. On top of that, the more I read the Bible looking for inspiration, the more holes and inconsistencies I see. 


    Like a great many people at your time of life you are starting to understand that things aren't exactly how they've been explained to you as a child.

    You need to try and form your own opinions now.

    I would ask that you keep an open mind though.

    There are a great many other intepretations of Christianity or faith in general and you may find one of them more personally satisfying than the one in which you were raised.

    There again you may find none of it satisfactory and live life without any religious faith.

    You are embarking on a time of great personal discovery - don't be afraid, embrace it.

    Just always try to remember what it is about the actions of others that you currently find deplorable and try not to become like that yourself in whatever path you find. smiley - smiley

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 57.

    Posted by aisok (U13765880) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    dont bother with any version of xianity

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Sunday, 14th March 2010

    Your waffle has peaked my interest, so I'd like to find out how much you really know!

    You said,

    >>Well, I'd use this in conjunction with such things as the two possible endings of Mark - the short and the long versions.<<

    Also,

    >>This shows the Bible is not a consistent and accurate document. It's a document that's been edited and updated over time. The question then becomes - which parts are accurate and which are just stories? <<


    Reply,

    I take it you read Greek and are familiar with modern techniques of Greek textual manuscript criticism, if not you have no comment and do not really know what you are talking about and if that is the case, why do you give the impression you do know waht you are talking about!


    PS,


    There was an in-depth discussion last year on the topic of Greek textual manuscript criticism looking at various extant Greek manuscripts, which revealed how scribes/copiest did some altering for theological reasons, the alteration do not even amopunt to 1% of the whole and the gospel message remains unaltered...!

    our call!


    letusreason

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    dont bother with any version of xianity 

    Sorry, obviously what I should have said is "try to keep an open mind but also do exactly what aisok tells you".

    smiley - erm

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    >>There is no way that a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago.<,

    Going through some of the papers I have, I noticed tha Cornelius Tacitus the Roman historian and Flavius Josephus both menation Jesus and the Christians and they lived nearwer the time.

    Experts like yourself said several decades ago that Pontius Pilate, as well as other biblical characters didn't exist, but in the early sixties, they were shut up and humiliated by a marble slab found in that pertinent area, which verified the truthfulness of the bible and the stupidity of so called cleaver scholars, who were self deluded by their rightness and many listened to them, as they may well listen to you!

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by sciolist (U7547242) on Monday, 15th March 2010


    Experts like yourself
     

    What's that supposed to mean? Are all sceptics responsible for each other?


    said several decades ago that Pontius Pilate, as well as other biblical characters didn't exist
     

    Apologist lies. Produce an example , or retract.

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 57.

    Posted by NearlySane (U3123538) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by skillful_mcgill

    Quoted from this message





    Like a great many people at your time of life you are starting to understand that things aren't exactly how they've been explained to you as a child.

    You need to try and form your own opinions now.

    I would ask that you keep an open mind though.

    There are a great many other intepretations of Christianity or faith in general and you may find one of them more personally satisfying than the one in which you were raised.

    There again you may find none of it satisfactory and live life without any religious faith.

    You are embarking on a time of great personal discovery - don't be afraid, embrace it.

    Just always try to remember what it is about the actions of others that you currently find deplorable and try not to become like that yourself in whatever path you find.  


    Speaking as someone from the opposite of the theist/atheist split from skilful, I'll note here that I agree with him - I'd just add that you shouldn't thinmk that you need the answers to all your questions all at the same time. Also don't think that because someone seems to be wrong about one thing that they or any form of thought or philosophy will be wrong about everything - in fact finding anything that you can find no fault with is probably an indication that it's trying to give that impression.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by sciolist (U7547242) on Monday, 15th March 2010


    I take it you read Greek and are familiar with modern techniques of Greek textual manuscript criticism, if not you have no comment and do not really know what you are talking about
     

    Your attempted pretentiousness isn't impressing anybody. In any case, the question is one of higher criticism. Textual criticism can say very little about the history of the Gospels before 200AD because there are no substantial early manuscripts.

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by NearlySane (U3123538) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by letusreason



    Going through some of the papers I have, I noticed tha Cornelius Tacitus the Roman historian and Flavius Josephus both menation Jesus and the Christians and they lived nearwer the time.
     


    Tacitus refers to the followers of 'Chrestus' in relation to the Great Fire in Rome - so it's a bit of a stretch to argue that this gives us any real indication of the existence of JC.


    Josephus certainly mentions Jesus though there is cerainly string issues with whther that is a later interpolation since it doesn't tie in with the rest of his writings.

    Further writers who you would think would include comment on Jc don't.

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 65.

    Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    I'm not sure we can even claim that Josephus 'certainly mentions Jesus' in the TF - this passage not only uses ideas which were unlikely to be held by Josephus, but also employs certain terminology in a fashion which Josephus studiously avoids i.e. someone attempted to copy his style but made a mistake (or rushed it)!

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by NearlySane (U3123538) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by Barry_Monkey2

    I'm not sure we can even claim that Josephus 'certainly mentions Jesus' in the TF - this passage not only uses ideas which were unlikely to be held by Josephus, but also employs certain terminology in a fashion which Josephus studiously avoids i.e. someone attempted to copy his style but made a mistake (or rushed it)!
     


    Agreed Barry - I was meaning certainly included in the writings of Josephus but there are doubts that is authentically Josephus

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 67.

    Posted by NearlySane (U3123538) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    Apologies as regards Tacitus he did go into slightly more detail but it should be noted that he was writing in 116 CE and wasn't born till 56 CE and it may well be that he was reporting what he had been told by Chistians.


    I don't really doubt that a Jesus existed but that doesn't really mean that everytihng the NT is then completely validated

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 67.

    Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    Hi NearlySane

    Ah, my apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick! I see what you mean now smiley - smiley

    Regards

    Barry

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 68.

    Posted by aisok (U13765880) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    if jesus didnt walk on water then he didnt exist

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by diksleksik (U14059681) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    Hi aisok
    if jesus didnt walk on water then he didnt exist 
    Does that mean that if you cant walk on water you don't exist?!

    Well I exist and I can walk on water ( ok its a freshly mopped floor)smiley - winkeye
    Have fun
    dik

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 65.

    Posted by sciolist (U7547242) on Monday, 15th March 2010


    Further writers who you would think would include comment on Jc don't.
     

    Bottom line is, none of the claimed non-Christian sources does any more than vouch for the existence of Christians with certain beliefs. We know that.

    None of them is going to vouch for the divinity of Jesus from personal conviction, because then he'd be a Christian.

    The best one could hope for would be something like "these Christians said such, but I had doubts, so I checked with the rabbis, and they said yes, this Jesus definitely existed, but he was nobody and did nothing." Not sure that would help the cause, and anyway, why would the rabbis remember, and why would the writer bother to mention it?

    The trouble with the whole "historical Jesus" thing is that, if Jesus wasn't divine, he was everybody and nobody. Take out the important part of the story and what's left isn't worth saving.

    Sadly, the Incarnation of God Almighty, surely the most important event ever, turned out to be a bit less universally overwhelming than one might have expected.

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by lazylil (U2866318) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    Re M66

    I'm not sure we can even claim that Josephus 'certainly mentions Jesus' in the TF - this passage not only uses ideas which were unlikely to be held by Josephus, but also employs certain terminology in a fashion which Josephus studiously avoids i.e. someone attempted to copy his style but made a mistake (or rushed it)!  


    www.standpointmag.co...
    Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus
    GEZA VERMES
    January/February 2010

    "In conclusion, what seems to be Josephus's authentic portrait of Jesus depicts him as a wise teacher and miracle worker, with an enthusiastic following of Jewish disciples who, despite the crucifixion of their master by order of Pontius Pilate in collusion with the Jerusalem high priests, remained faithful to him up to Josephus's days."

    How can one choose between the massive atheist intellects who haunt this board on the one hand and the Emeritus Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford on the other hand?

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by wigginhall (U13785634) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    In fact, nearly all historians and scholars support the actual existence of Jesus, but not his divine status.

    The 'mythicists' tend to be an odd crowd, who are fascinated by Osiris, Atlantis, Mithras, and so on. They have loads of websites on the interdweebz, many of them full of unsupported opinions. 'I just feel really strongly that Jesus didn't exist'.

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 74.

    Posted by lazylil (U2866318) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    M74

    The 'mythicists' tend to be an odd crowd 

    That's putting it mildly!!

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    lazylil. Back in 1875, disproving the lies inserted into Josephus was said to be like flogging a dead horse.

    Using a little intelligence on it:

    Josephus (born 37 AD), believed everything modern day christians do but did not become a christian and remained a jew for the rest of his life.

    Does that sound correct to you?

    The forgery was said to probably be down to Eusebius, who "found" the verses concerned.

    As to the prof, teaching stuff is not the same as researching stuff. Anyone can parrot what someone else has taught them.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 74.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    wigginhall. There is no proof that Jesus existed. All we have is the gospels which are not first hand accounts and were written a number of decades to over a century after Jesus by unknown people who never met Jesus.

    To say that Jesus existed is a statement of faith only.

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 77.

    Posted by wigginhall (U13785634) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    SBQ

    There is no proof Hannibal existed. There are no contemporary accounts of his life.

    There is no proof Boudicca existed. There are no contemporary accounts of her life, and later only hearsay accounts from Tacitus.

    There is no proof John the Bapist existed.

    That's the way with ancient history. They didn't have video cameras.

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by lazylil (U2866318) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    M76

    As to the prof, teaching stuff is not the same as researching stuff. Anyone can parrot what someone else has taught them. 

    That puts the Emeritus Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford in his place! Don't suppose he has done a moment's research in his life! You should contact the authorities at Oxford University and inform them of the opinions of BarryMonkey2.

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by lazylil (U2866318) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    Sir Bernard ,

    While you're at it, inform the authorities at Oxford of the opening post:

    There is no way that a man named Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Why? Because the letter J was not invented until the 14th century. So, if we can't even get his name right, then what else have we got wrong? 

    Thow in your weight as well and they can only reach one conclusion.

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by skillful_mcgill (U6283846) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    That puts the Emeritus Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford in his place! 

    "Sir" Bernard Quatermass isn't impressed by such titles lazylil.

    He knows more about physics than a whole roomfull of Professors. smiley - laugh

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by Pukon_the_Treen (U1724700) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    wigginhall,

    There is no proof Hannibal existed. There are no contemporary accounts of his life.

    There is no proof Boudicca existed. There are no contemporary accounts of her life, and later only hearsay accounts from Tacitus.

    There is no proof John the Bapist existed. 

    True. This being so, the sensible thing to do with all of the these historical characters is consider the various biases and agendas of the authors who give us the evidence and read them in that light, try to isolate and weed out later additions and embelishments, look for archaeology and other sources which tie in with the historical details and discount anything which sounds supernatural or physically impossible as myth, rumour and propaganda.

    How many Christians do that for Jesus? Not many, because He isn’t supposed to be treated as a historical character; His actual physical existence is (or should be) irrelevant to the religion.

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by lazylil (U2866318) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    M81


    "Sir" Bernard Quatermass isn't impressed by such titles lazylil. 

    Indeed he seems to have more faith in fictitious self-awarded titles than ones that have been earned!

    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 83.

    Posted by aisok (U13765880) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    some people are experts on harry potter - that doesnt mean he exists

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by lazylil (U2866318) on Monday, 15th March 2010

    M84

    some people are experts on harry potter 

    Not Emeritus Professors at Oxford and even the "experts" on Harry Potter are probably confined to the Internet like BarryMonkey2 and Sir Bernard.

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 62.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    >>Message 62 - posted by anti-intellectual (U7547242) , 17 Hours Ago

    Experts like yourself
    Quoted from this message


    What's that supposed to mean? Are all sceptics responsible for each other?

    said several decades ago that Pontius Pilate, as well as other biblical characters didn't exist
    Quoted from this message


    Apologist lies. Produce an example, or retract. <<





    Reply,



    Have the theories of the higher critics stood the test of time and been proved true?

    Such is the whining of the amateur ‘higher critic’ who swallows hook line and sinker everything he reads on the topic of “higher criticism”, that he reads, because he has no faith in anything the bible has to say, and so, such is the arrested mentality of such a person!

    “Higher criticism” surfaced in the 19th Century and it was J.G. Einchhorn who seemed to first coined the term “higher criticism” in 1787. Most of its claims have been proved false by textual criticism and archaeological finds, since the coining of the phrase, since these critics did not have access to the manuscripts and archaeological finds we have access to today…!

    The subject, ‘higher criticism’ emerged sometime in the 19th century and much of its claims have been proved false and just mere speculation due to new archaeological finds and better textual criticism, which is not the same as ‘higher criticism’!

    In his book The Bible Comes Alive, Sir Charles Marston said:

    “Those who have shaken popular faith in the Bible, and undermined its authority, are in turn undermined themselves by the evidence that has been brought to light and their authority destroyed. The spade is driving destructive criticism out of the field of questionable facts into that of recognized fiction.”



    U.S.News & World Report, Oct 25, 1999
    When it comes to actual historical accuracy of the Bible, the October 25, 1999, issue of U.S.News & World Report said:

    “In extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New Testaments— corroborating key portions of the stories of Israel’s patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus.”

    Bible [higher] critics questioned the existence of the Roman Governor of Judea Pontius Pilate and were doubtful if such an individual ever existed outside the bible, as there was little or no evidence to support the biblical view. But archaeological discoveries have confirmed the biblical account on Pontius Pilate, as in 1961, an Italian archaeological expedition from the University of Milan found the name of Pontius Pilate on an inscription in the ruins of a Roman theatre at Caesarea and it was the very first of such a description of Pilate to be found outside the bible and it would seem that the only evidence outside the bible for Pilate were from sources like Josephus!



    The Latin inscription reads:

    “Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honour of Tiberius.”


    So much for the higher critics, but that didn’t stop them, as it will not stop our resident higher critic above!



    More on the ‘Higher critics’


    Great cities long gone, kings who are no more, conquering nations, who now reside in the dust of time, are mentioned and brought to life in the bible and that they indeed exist!



    “Archaeology has supported the Bible in many ways. For example, discoveries have confirmed the places and names found in Genesis chapter 10. Excavators have uncovered the Chaldean city of Ur, the commercial and religious centre where Abraham was born. (Genesis 11:27-31) Above the spring of Gihon in the south-eastern part of Jerusalem, archaeologists found the Jebusite city taken by King David. (2 Samuel 5:4-10) The Siloam Inscription carved at one end of King Hezekiah’s conduit, or aqueduct, was discovered in 1880. (2 Kings 20:20) Babylon’s fall to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E. is related in the Nabonidus Chronicle, unearthed in the 19th century C.E. Details in the book of Esther have been confirmed by inscriptions from Persepolis and the discovery of the palace of King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) at Shushan, or Susa, between 1880 and 1890 C.E. An inscription found in 1961 in the ruins of a Roman theatre at Caesarea proved the existence of Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who handed Jesus over for impalement.—Matthew 27:11-26.”


    The Nabonidus Chronicle.

    In the latter half of the 19th century, excavations near Baghdad produced many finds of clay tablets and cylinders that threw much light on the history of ancient Babylon. One of these was the very valuable document known as the Nabonidus Chronicle, which is now in the British Museum. King Nabonidus of Babylon was the father of his coregent, Belshazzar. He outlived his son, who was killed on the night that troops of Cyrus the Persian took Babylon, October 5, 539 B.C.E. (Dan. 5:30, 31) The Nabonidus Chronicle, a remarkably well-dated record of the fall of Babylon, helps to establish on what day this event occurred. Following is a translation of a small part of the Nabonidus Chronicle: “In the month of Tashritu [Tishri (September-October)], when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris . . . the 14th day, Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. The 16th day [October 11, 539 B.C.E., Julian, or October 5, Gregorian] Gobryas (Ugbaru), the governor of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned (there). . . . In the month of Arahshamnu [Marchesvan (October-November)], the 3rd day [October 28, Julian], Cyrus entered Babylon, green twigs were spread in front of him—the state of ‘Peace’ (sulmu) was imposed upon the city. Cyrus sent greetings to all Babylon. Gobryas, his governor, installed (sub-)governors in Babylon.”


    Assyrian King Sargon

    Higher critics also doubted the existence of Assyrian King Sargon, who mentioned in the bible at Isaiah 20:1, but unfortunately for the higher critics in the 1840’s, archaeologists began to uncover the palace complex of this king. Now, Sargon is one of the best known of the Assyrian kings.

    Another biblical character the higher critics doubted the existence of was King Belshazzar, but unfortunately for them, they have had to do a runner, just as in the above!


    In an original paper by Prof. Robert D. Wilson [Professor of Semitic Philology in Princeton Theological Seminary] published in 1922, the question was asked,

    “IS THE HIGHER CRITICISM SCHOLARLY?”

    heartoftn.net/users/...

    Going back to the above higher critic,


    >> What's that supposed to mean? Are all sceptics responsible for each other?

    said several decades ago that Pontius Pilate, as well as other biblical characters didn't exist
    Quoted from this message


    Apologist lies. Produce an example, or retract. <<

    Reply,


    Higher Critic nonsense and lies. Prove the above wrong, or retract!


    letusreason





    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by NearlySane (U3123538) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by lazylil







    www.standpointmag.co...
    Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus
    GEZA VERMES
    January/February 2010

    "In conclusion, what seems to be Josephus's authentic portrait of Jesus depicts him as a wise teacher and miracle worker, with an enthusiastic following of Jewish disciples who, despite the crucifixion of their master by order of Pontius Pilate in collusion with the Jerusalem high priests, remained faithful to him up to Josephus's days."

    How can one choose between the massive atheist intellects who haunt this board on the one hand and the Emeritus Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford on the other hand? 


    So it's argument by authority - then you don't have to have the atheists on this board vs teh Emeritus professor - you have the majority of biblical scolars against the Emeritus professor.

    The interesting thing of course here is that neither Barry Monkey or myself who were having teh discussion actually seem to doubt the existnce of JC rather we're noting that the siources are either not that useful, or indeed have been questioned by reputable scholarship - the fact that you create a straw man then of the atheists of this board against Geza Vermes says rather more about you than the actual discussion.

    The real issue on any of this is does the acceptance that there was a Jesus mean that everything said about him is true - and the answer to that is no - unless people are willing to accept that the other JC - Julius Caesar was really a descendant of Aphrodite

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by Heselbine (U1612177) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    There is no proof Hannibal existed. There are no contemporary accounts of his life.

    There is no proof Boudicca existed. There are no contemporary accounts of her life, and later only hearsay accounts from Tacitus.

    There is no proof John the Bapist existed. 


    You've missed the point. No-one is seriously claiming anything particularly extraordinary about these people, unless there's a cult of Boudicca worshippers out there I'm unaware of.

    Much more evidence is required of Jesus because of the extraordinary claims made about him. If you drop the extraordinary claims, then the level of evidence you need drops accordingly.

    If the hypothesis becomes "there was a remarkable teacher called Jesus who lived at around the time of 0BCE" then, well, so what? No-one's going to have much of a problem with that. Start talking about bodily resurrections and miracles and you're upping the stakes.

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by wigginhall (U13785634) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    NS

    Yes, some people seem to get confused between the historical existence of Jesus, which few professional historians doubt, and the Christ of faith, which is of course a completely different matter.

    The historical Jesus is the most parsimonious explanation of the various accounts. It simply says that an itinerant Jewish preacher was baptized by John the Baptist, fell foul of the authorities, and was executed.

    His followers began to see him as a revelation of the divine, but that is theology, not history.

    Some atheists are so full of anti-theist dogma that they refuse to apply normal historical criteria to Jesus, which they would happily apply say to Boudicca, or indeed other Jewish preachers of the time, e.g. 'the Egyptian'.

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    'The subject, ‘higher criticism’ emerged sometime in the 19th century and much of its claims have been proved false and just mere speculation due to new archaeological finds and better textual criticism'

    ...this is flatly untrue.

    Although the 19th-century 'higher criticism ' has been superceded by modern critical methods, they support rathert than destroy its main thesis: the Bible is not factual history but retrospective theology, a book of faith, not a book of facts.

    Archaeology has disproved notions of factual accuracy in the Bible. There's a lack of evidence for the Exodus from Egypt , for instance, or for the assumption that the Pentateuch is the earliest part of the Bible, and plenty of evidence that it was written later than the chronicles and some of the prohetic books .

    The inclusion in the Bible of that would be then the names of a few well-known places or kings is no indication that the rest of the Bible has any factual accuracy.

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by jjohnjil (U9755615) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    M86

    Letusreason

    What exactly does your post prove? That the historical characters mentioned in the Bible were real people - okay, what about it? Shakespeare's plays were all about real historical characters but they are all fictional stories about those characters.

    Of course the writers of the Biblical stories would have used well-known (at that time) people to bring credence to those stories but I note there is no mention of the main hero, nor anything about his disciples.

    Atheists do not doubt there were events that happened around that time, like crucifictions but the whole crux of Christian religious belief is that Jesus was born to a virgin, he was sired by a supernatural god and that he was resurrected. Without any evidence of those things the whole religion falls flat on it's face!

    I have never doubted there was a rebel leader in those times who was executed as a criminal - probably there were lots of them - but the myths that were added to make people believe he was the son of your mythical God have no supportive evidence whatsoever.

    Report message41

  • Message 92

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by sciolist (U7547242) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010


    How can one choose between the massive atheist intellects who haunt this board on the one hand and the Emeritus Professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford on the other hand?
     

    "Emeritus" means "past it". Geza Vermes is 85.

    Report message42

  • Message 93

    , in reply to message 92.

    Posted by SceptiKarl (U13817033) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    It strikes me as odd that we are to rely on the research of Oxford and other scholars regarding the historical evidence in favour of the creator of the universe dropping in on humanity. This "creator" was obviously very modest and understated in His approach towards His earthly manifestation. The Jews at the time didn't accept Jesus as the messiah, so why should we now? ISTM that even the disciples didn't really believe in Jesus as God according to the Bible.

    There's definitely a similarity to Robin Hood imo.

    Report message43

  • Message 94

    , in reply to message 89.

    Posted by NearlySane (U3123538) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by wigginhall



    Some atheists are so full of anti-theist dogma that they refuse to apply normal historical criteria to Jesus, which they would happily apply say to Boudicca, or indeed other Jewish preachers of the time, e.g. 'the Egyptian'.
     


    I think there is sometimes a reaction to the Alpha argument that's there is as much evidence for Jesus as Caesar. I've never really understood the whole Jesus as myth lot - too out there for me.

    Report message44

  • Message 95

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by sciolist (U7547242) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010


    Higher Critic nonsense and lies. Prove the above wrong, or retract!
     

    There were plenty of people in the 19th century, and later, who churned out vast heaps of manure on the subject of the origins of the Bible. A lot of it was just sheer flights of fancy unconstrained by any known facts. Right now over on the Jewish Topic there's a guy flogging a website which makes out it was all a rewrite of ancient Egyptian history or something. Criticism? Critical, it isn't.

    Doesn't change the fact that there's also a lot of perfectly serious credible scholarship on the subject of the origins of the Bible, authors, dates, and so on.
    You've got no grounds for tarring all higher criticism with the same brush.

    Report message45

  • Message 96

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by gonnagle (U14214447) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    Dear Weirdererer and everybody else,

    Great thread guys and gals, now reading about the synoptic gospels, question is, or rather is the guy saying that, Mathew,Mark and John is different from Luke in some way, so far all I have is that Luke is the most modern version of the four Gospels.

    Getting ahead of myself, but are these what we call the Gnostic Gospels, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel according to Peter, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the protevangelium of James also known as the book of James, the Gospel according to Thomas, the Arabic Gospel of the childhood of Jesus, the gospel of Philip, the Arabic history of Joseph the carpenter, the Gospel of the twelve Apostles, and lastly the passing of Mary.

    My reference is a old book I have, Dictionary of the Bible, it calls the above, Gospels Apocryphal, Oxford English says, widely circulated but unlikely to be true, so are we talking Gnostic Gospels.

    Gonnagle.

    Report message46

  • Message 97

    , in reply to message 89.

    Posted by sciolist (U7547242) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010


    Some atheists are so full of anti-theist dogma that they refuse to apply normal historical criteria to Jesus, which they would happily apply say to Boudicca, or indeed other Jewish preachers of the time, e.g. 'the Egyptian'.
     

    Thing about Boudicca is that Tacitus purports her to have been a real person, in a specific role at a specific time, and invites us to assume that he's done the research. We only have to decide whether we believe it. With Jesus, it's less clear what the question is.

    If I say there was some guy in Norfolk in the 1st century AD who grew corn and kept pigs and died, then it's presumably true that there was such a guy, but "such a guy" is only an archetype, not an historical individual. To make him an historical individual we need a unique identifier - this guy whose skull I've dug up, or this guy whose name is chiselled on this stone.

    We can only specify Jesus as the guy the Gospels are on about -- and we don't know what the Gospels are. If we suppose that the origin of the Church was much as commonly imagined and the Gospels were written in the commonly imagined way by four guys who we may as well call Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then we'll probably decide they weren't totally full of crap and there was an historical Jesus.

    But we've already assumed far too much -- there are too many things wrong with this picture. And the argument has become fundamentally circular already, because the conventional account of the origin of the Church depends pretty much on there having been a Resurrection and falls apart without it.


    Report message47

  • Message 98

    , in reply to message 97.

    Posted by wigginhall (U13785634) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    anti-intellectual

    If we say that Jesus was an itinerant Jewish preacher, who preached an apocalyptic message, and got executed, there we have the bare historical bones.

    I think many historians would say this is a parsimonious explanation, and leaves on one side the theological issues.

    Most of the 'Jesus myth' accounts I have read are full of 'what ifs', and 'maybes'. Yeah, maybe Jesus came from Atlantis, and was actually a sun god, and his cousin was Quetzalcoatl. Well, it's possible!

    Report message48

  • Message 99

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Invictus Maneo (U13657683) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    PS:He also wants you to sign this petition.  

    smiley - laugh Good one Gonnagle!

    Have chucked my hat into the ring for your petition: 1076 Signatures Total

    Report message49

  • Message 100

    , in reply to message 99.

    Posted by gonnagle (U14214447) on Tuesday, 16th March 2010

    Dear Blades,

    Cheers mate, I thought the mods had got rid of most of my posts on that subject, and glad to see I put a smile on your face, it might please you to know that Bill Wyman, he of the rolling stone fame has also signed the petition.

    Gonnagle.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.