ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

The place to be for all Conspiracy Theories, photoshopping of pictures, IVF and Multiplie Babies, and many more other theories

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:27 pm

julygirl3210 wrote:Which he in turn will have heard of from the first hand reports from Jesus' brothers, and in particular James. His was an eye-witness account of Jesus.

And before you say "of course James would say that of his brother". Come on, in most families, yours for instance, if you made wild claims to be the son of god you would laughed at from here to kingdom come.

Just because he was a brother, he didn't have to believe Jesus. He believed his brother because he saw with his own eyes.

But then again. Nobody can convince you that there is a God anymore than anyone can convince me that there is no God.

Who moved the stone, by Frank Morris, is an excellent book. He was a Lawyer. I thought you believed that only the uneducated masses believe in a God. Religion, and faith, are entirely separate. Religion is man made.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Yeshua brother which one there were many james a popular name? Ben Yeshua I believe something like 18 were reported walking around in that time...Like I said hearsay. NO HISTORICAL GODMAN! NO! NO! EVIDENCE

josephus a man purports to have known of this historical yeshua, may I remind the reader of the things dear Josephus forgot to scribe.

**The triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. :oops:

**His acclamation as the Messiah. :oops:

**The riot before the governor's house. :oops:

**The surrendering by the Sanhedrim of one of their people to the Roman authorities. :oops:

**The disappearance of the body from the grave. :oops:

so much for this great apologist :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by Tripz on Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:48 pm

IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?

If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?

To take one example, examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.

Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. Hercules got born as a human from the union of God (Zeus) and the mortal and chaste Alcmene, his mother. Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mentions Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.

Some critics doubt that a historicized Jesus could develop from myth because they think there never occurred any precedence for it. We have many examples of myth from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails in the light of the most obvious example-- the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, et al.. assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc.

These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived. As Robert M. Price revealed, "The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it." [Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which started as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction but believed by their constituents.

People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian friends.
Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. Historical review has yet to achieve the reliability of scientific investigation, (and in fact, many times ignores it). If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he or she says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.

So do you see now? :)
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:54 pm

CITING GEOGRAPHY, AND KNOWN HISTORICAL FIGURES AS "EVIDENCE"

Although the New Testament mentions various cities, geological sites, kings and people that existed or lived during the alleged life of Jesus, these descriptions cannot serve as evidence for the existence of Jesus anymore than works of fiction that include recognizable locations, and make mention of actual people.

Homer's Odyssey, for example, describes the travels of Odysseus throughout the Greek islands. The epic describes, in detail, many locations that existed in history. But should we take Odysseus, the Greek gods and goddesses, one-eyed giants and monsters as literal fact simply because the story depicts geographic locations accurately? Of course not. Mythical stories, fictions, and narratives almost always use familiar landmarks as placements for their stories. The authors of the Greek tragedies not only put their stories in plausible settings as happening in the real world but their supernatural characters took on the desires, flaws and failures of mortal human beings. Consider that fictions such as King Kong, Superman, and Star Trek include recognizable cities, planets, and landmarks, with their protagonists and antagonists miming human emotions.

Likewise, just because the Gospels mention cities and locations in Judea, and known historical people, with Jesus behaving like an actual human being (with the added dimension of supernatural curses, miracles, etc.) but this says nothing about the actuality of the characters portrayed in the stories. However, when a story uses impossible historical locations, or geographical errors, we may question the authority of the claims.

For example, in Matt 4:8, the author describes the devil taking Jesus into an exceedingly high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world. Since there exists no spot on the spheroid earth to view "all the kingdoms, " we know that the Bible errors here.

John 12:21 says, "The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee. . . ." Bethsaida resided in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which resided west of the river.

John 3:23 says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim. . . ." Critics agree that no such place as Aenon exists near Salim.

There occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus. [Leedom; Gauvin] Nazareth does not appear in the Old Testament, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus's writings (even though he provides a detailed list of the cities of Galilee). Oddly, none of the New Testament epistle writers ever mentions Nazareth or a Jesus of Nazareth even though most of the epistles got written before the gospels. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels, where the first one got written at least 40 years after the hypothetical death of Jesus. Apologists attempt to dismiss this by claiming that Nazareth existed as an insignificant and easily missed village (how would they know?), thus no one recorded it. However, whenever the Gospels speak of Nazareth, they always refer to it as a city, never a village, and a historian of that period would surely have noticed a city. (Note the New Testament uses the terms village, town, and city.) Nor can apologists fall on archeological evidence of preexisting artifacts for the simple reason that many cities get built on ancient sites. If a city named Nazareth existed during the 1st century, then we need at least one contemporary piece of evidence for the name, otherwise we cannot refer to it as historical.

Many more errors and unsupported geographical locations appear in the New Testament. And although one cannot use these as evidence against a historical Jesus, we can certainly question the reliability of the texts. If the scriptures make so many factual errors about geology, science, and contain so many contradictions, falsehoods could occur any in area.

If we have a coupling with historical people and locations, then we should also have some historical reference of a Jesus to these locations and people. But just the opposite proves the case. The Bible depicts Herod, the Ruler of Jewish Palestine under Rome as sending out men to search and kill the infant Jesus, yet nothing in history supports such a story. Pontius Pilate supposedly performed as judge in the trial and execution of Jesus, yet no Roman record mentions such a trial. The gospels portray a multitude of believers throughout the land spreading tales of a teacher, prophet, and healer, yet nobody in Jesus' life time or several decades after, ever records such a human figure. The lack of a historical Jesus in the known historical record speaks for itself.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:20 pm

THEN WHY THE MYTH OF JESUS?

Some people actually believe that just because so much voice and ink has spread the word of a character named Jesus throughout history, that this must mean that he actually lived. This argument simply does not hold. The number of people who believe or write about something or the professional degrees they hold say nothing at all about fact. Facts derive out of evidence, not from hearsay, not from hubris scholars, and certainly not from faithful believers. Regardless of the position or admiration held by a scholar, believer, or priest, if he or she cannot support their hypothesis with good evidence, then it can only remain a hypothesis.

While the possibility exists that an actual Jesus lived, a more likely possibility reveals that a mythology could have arrived totally out of earlier mythologies. Although we have no evidence for a historical Jesus, we certainly have many accounts for the mythologies of the Middle East and Egypt during the first century and before that appear similar to the Christ saviour story.

If you know your ancient history, remember that just before and during the first century, the Jews had prophesied about an upcoming Messiah based on Jewish scripture. Their beliefs influenced many of their followers. We know that powerful beliefs can create self-fulfilling prophesies, and surely this proved just as true in ancient times. It served as a popular dream expressed in Hebrew Scripture for the promise of an "end-time" with a savior to lead them to the promised land. Indeed, Roman records show executions of several would-be Messiahs, (but not a single record mentions a Jesus). Many ancients believed that there could come a final war against the "Sons of Darkness"-- the Romans.

This then could very well have served as the ignition and flame for the future growth of Christianity. We know that the early Christians lived within pagan communities. Jewish scriptural beliefs coupled with the pagan myths of the time give sufficient information about how such a religion could have formed. Many of the Hellenistic and pagan myths parallel so closely to the alleged Jesus that to ignore its similarities means to ignore the mythological beliefs of history. Dozens of similar savior stories propagated the minds of humans long before the alleged life of Jesus. Virtually nothing about Jesus "the Christ" came to the Christians as original or new.


For example, the religion of Zoroaster, founded circa 628-551 B.C.E. in ancient Persia, roused mankind in the need for hating a devil, the belief of a paradise, last judgment and resurrection of the dead. Mithraism, an offshoot of Zoroastrianism probably influenced early Christianity. The Magi described in the New Testament appears as Zoroastrian priests. Note the word "paradise" came from the Persian pairidaeza.


The Egyptian mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to Jesus. [Leedom, Massey] For some examples:

Horus and the Father as one

Horus, the Father seen in the Son

Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.

Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person

Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)

Horus the Good Shepherd

Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)

Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)

Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)

The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit

Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)

Horus the afflicted one

Horus as life eternal

Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)


According to Massey, "The mythical Messiah is Horus in the Osirian Mythos; Har-Khuti in the Sut-Typhonian; Khunsu in that of Amen-Ra; Iu in the cult of Atum-Ra; and the Christ of the Gospels is an amalgam of all these characters."

Osiris, Hercules, Mithra, Hermes, Prometheus, Perseus and others compare to the Christian myth. According to Patrick Campbell of The Mythical Jesus, all served as pre-Christian sun gods, yet all allegedly had gods for fathers, virgins for mothers; had their births announced by stars; got born on the solstice around December 25th; had tyrants who tried to kill them in their infancy; met violent deaths; rose from the dead; and nearly all got worshiped by "wise men" and had allegedly fasted for forty days. [McKinsey, Chapter 5]

The pre-Christian cult of Mithra had a deity of light and truth, son of the Most High, fought against evil, presented the idea of the Logos. Pagan Mithraism mysteries had the burial in a rock tomb, resurrection, sacrament of bread & water (Eucharist), the marking on the forehead with a mystic mark, the symbol of the Rock, the Seven Spirits and seven stars, all before the advent of Christianity.

Even Justin Martyr recognized the analogies between Christianity and Paganism. To the Pagans, he wrote: "When we say that the Word, who is first born of God, was produced without sexual union, and that he, Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven; we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter (Zeus)." [First Apology, ch. xxi]

Virtually all of the mythical accounts of a savior Jesus have parallels to past pagan mythologies which existed long before Christianity and from the Jewish scriptures that we now call the Old Testament. The accounts of these myths say nothing about historical reality, but they do say a lot about believers, how they believed, and how their beliefs spread.


In the book The Jesus Puzzle, the biblical scholar, Earl Doherty, presents not only a challenge to the existence of an historical Jesus but reveals that early pre-Gospel Christian documents show that the concept of Jesus sprang from non-historical spiritual beliefs of a Christ derived from Jewish scripture and Hellenized myths of savior gods. Nowhere do any of the New Testament epistle writers describe a human Jesus, including Paul. None of the epistles mention a Jesus from Nazareth, an earthly teacher, or as a human miracle worker. Nowhere do we find these writers quoting Jesus. Nowhere do we find them describing any details of Jesus' life on earth or his followers. Nowhere do we find the epistle writers even using the word "disciple" (they of course use the term "apostle" but the word simply means messenger, as Paul saw himself). Except for two well known interpolations, Jesus always gets presented as a spiritual being that existed before all time with God, and that knowledge of Christ came directly from God or as a revelation from the word of scripture. Doherty writes, "Christian documents outside the Gospels, even at the end of the first century and beyond, show no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life and ministry of Jesus were in circulation."

These early historical documents can prove nothing about an actual Jesus but they do show an evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse concepts of Christianity, starting from a purely spiritual form of Christ to a human figure who embodied that spirit, as portrayed in the Gospels. The New Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience for their particular religious times.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:16 pm

QUOTES FROM A FEW SCHOLARS:

Although apologist scholars believe that an actual Jesus lived on earth, the reasons for this appear obvious considering their Christian beliefs. Although some secular freethinkers and atheists accept a historical Jesus (minus the miracles), they, like most Chrisitans, simply accept the traditional view without question. As time goes on, more and more scholars have begun to open the way to a more honest look at the evidence, or should I say, the lack of evidence. So for those who wish to rely on scholarly opinion, I will give a few quotes from Biblical scholars, past and present:

When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.
--Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.
--Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.
--J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)

Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.
--Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)

Many people-- then and now-- have assumed that these letters [of Paul] are genuine, and five of them were in fact incorporated into the New Testament as "letters of Paul." Even today, scholars dispute which are authentic and which are not. Most scholars, however, agree that Paul actually wrote only eight of the thirteen "Pauline" letters now included in the New Testament. collection: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Virtually all scholars agree that Paul himself did not write 1 or 2 Timothy or Titus-- letters written in a style different from Paul's and reflecting situations and viewpoints in a style different from those in Paul's own letters. About the authorship of Ephesias, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, debate continues; but the majority of scholars include these, too, among the "deutero-Pauline"-- literally, secondarily Pauline-- letters."
--Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (Adam, Eve, and the Serpent)

We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
--Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence."
--Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University

We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world.
--Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)

The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.
--Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

Far from being an intimate of an intimate of Jesus, Mark wrote at the forth remove from Jesus.
--Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus.
--Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)

All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.
--Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)

The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel.
--Bishop John Shelby Spong

Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it.
--Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)

But even if it could be proved that John's Gospel had been the first of the four to be written down, there would still be considerable confusion as to who "John" was. For the various styles of the New Testament texts ascribed to John- The Gospel, the letters, and the Book of Revelations-- are each so different in their style that it is extremely unlikely that they had been written by one person.
--John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)

It was not until the third century that Jesus' cross of execution became a common symbol of the Christian faith.
--John Romer, archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)

What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things.
--Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)

When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards.
--David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)

It is said that the last recourse of the Bible apologist is to fall back upon allegory. After all, when confronted with the many hundreds of biblical problems, allegory permits one to interpret anything however one might please.
--Gene Kasmar, Minnesota Atheists

Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books ascribed to them.
--Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June 1994)

A generation after Jesus' death, when the Gospels were written, the Romans had destroyed the Jerusalem Temple (in 70 C.E.); the most influential centers of Christianity were cities of the Mediterranean world such as Alexandria, Antioch, Corinth, Damascus, Ephesus and Rome. Although large number of Jews were also followers of Jesus, non-Jews came to predominate in the early Church. They controlled how the Gospels were written after 70 C.E.
--Bruce Chilton, Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College (Bible Review, Dec. 1994, p. 37)

James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, "is in fact not historical."
How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus' baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is historical?

--Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)

David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as sources of historical information.
--Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39

The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts.
--Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing.
--Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Wrote the Bible, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or travelled with Jesus.
--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Once written, many experts believe, the Gospels were redacted, or edited, repeatedly as they were copied and circulated among church elders during the last first and early second centuries.
--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The tradition attributing the fourth Gospel to the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee, is first noted by Irenaeus in A.D. 180. It is a tradition based largely on what some view as the writer's reference to himself as "the beloved disciple" and "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Current objection to John's authorship are based largely on modern textural analyses that strongly suggest the fourth Gospel was the work of several hands, probably followers of an elderly teacher in Asia Minor named John who claimed as a young man to have been a disciple of Jesus.
--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself.
--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Three letters that Paul allegedly wrote to his friends and former co-workers Timothy and Titus are now widely disputed as having come from Paul's hand.
--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The Epistle of James is a practical book, light on theology and full of advice on ethical behavior. Even so, its place in the Bible has been challenged repeatedly over the years. It is generally believed to have been written near the end of the first century to Jewish Christians. . . but scholars are unable conclusively to identify the writer.

Five men named James appear in the New Testament: the brother of Jesus, the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphaeus, "James the younger" and the father of the Apostle Jude.

Little is known of the last three, and since the son of Zebedee was martyred in A.D. 44, tradition has leaned toward the brother of Jesus. However, the writer never claims to be Jesus' brother. And scholars find the language too erudite for a simple Palestinian. This letter is also disputed on theological grounds. Martin Luther called it "an epistle of straw" that did not belong in the Bible because it seemed to contradict Paul's teachings that salvation comes by faith as a "gift of God"-- not by good works.

--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The origins of the three letters of John are also far from certain.
--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Christian tradition has held that the Apostle Peter wrote the first [letter], probably in Rome shortly before his martyrdom about A.D. 65. However, some modern scholars cite the epistle's cultivated language and its references to persecutions that did not occur until the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) as evidence that it was actually written by Peter's disciples sometime later.
Second Peter has suffered even harsher scrutiny. Many scholars consider it the latest of all New Testament books, written around A.D. 125. The letter was never mentioned in second-century writings and was excluded from some church canons into the fifth century. "This letter cannot have been written by Peter, " wrote Werner Kummel, a Heidelberg University scholar, in his highly regarded Introduction to the New Testament.

--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The letter of Jude also is considered too late to have been written by the attested author-- "the brother of James" and, thus, of Jesus. The letter, believed written early in the second century.
--Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

According to the declaration of the Second Vatican Council, a faithful account of the actions and words of Jesus is to be found in the Gospels; but it is impossible to reconcile this with the existence in the text of contradictions, improbabilities, things which are materially impossible or statements which run contrary to firmly established reality.
The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.

--Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels, " (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus' life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion.[b]
--David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" (Time, April 8, 1996)

[b]So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus."

-Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926

The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction.
--Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)

Josephus says that he himself witnessed a certain Eleazar casting out demons by a method of exorcism that had been given to Solomon by God himself-- while Vespasian watched! In the same work, Josephus tells the story of a rainmaker, Onias (14.2.1).
--Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)

For Mark's gospel to work, for instance, you must believe that Isaiah 40:3 (quoted, in a slightly distorted form, in Mark 1:2-3) correctly predicted that a stranger named John would come out of the desert to prepare the way for Jesus. It will then come as something of a surprise to learn in the first chapter of Luke that John is a near relative, well known to Jesus' family.
--Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)

The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical record of that year.
--Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 54)

Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
--C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies.
--Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts
--Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

We are led to conclude that, in Paul's past, there was no historical Jesus. Rather, the activities of the Son about which God's gospel in scripture told, as interpreted by Paul, had taken place in the spiritual realm and were accessible only through revelation.
--Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle, " p.83

Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.
--Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle, " p.141

Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction.
--Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin, " Opening Statement

It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last."
--Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:32 pm

A NOTE ABOUT DATING:

The A.D. (Anno Domini, or "year of our Lord") dating method derived from a monk named Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Little), in the sixth-century who used it in his Easter tables. Oddly, some people seem to think this has relevance to a historical Jesus. But of course it has nothing at all to do with it. In the time before and during the 6th century, people used various other dating methods. The Romans used A.U.C. (anno urbis conditae, "year of the founded city, " that being Rome). The Jews had their own dating system. Not until the tenth century did most churches accept the new dating system. The A.D. system simply reset the time of January 1, 754 A.U.C. to January 1, of year one A.D., which Dionysius obliquly derived from the belief of the date of "incarnation" of Jesus . The date, if one uses the Bible as history, can't possibly hold true.* *

Instead of B.C. and A.D., I have used the convention of B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) as often used in scholarly literature. They correspond to the same dates as B.C. and A.D., but without alluding to the birth or death of an alleged Christ.



f/n** Dionysius believed that the conception (incarnation) of Jesus occurred on March 25. This meant that the conception must have occurred nine months later on December 25, probably not coincidentally, the very same date that the Emperor Aurelian, in 274 C.E., declared December 25 a holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336 C.E., Christians replaced Mithras with Jesus' birth on the same date. Dionysius then declared the new year several days later on January 1, probably to coincide with the traditional Roman year starting on January 1st. Dionysius probably never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus because the Matthew gospel says his birth occurred while Herod served as King. That meant that if he did exist, his birth would have to occur in 4 B.C.E. or earlier. He made another mistake by assigning the first year as 1 instead of 0 (everyone's birthday starts at year 0, not 1). The concept of zero (invented from Arabia and India) didn't come into Europe until about two hundred years later.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:37 pm

CONCLUSION

Belief cannot produce historical fact, and claims that come from nothing but hearsay do not amount to an honest attempt to get at the facts. Even with eyewitness accounts we must tread carefully. Simply because someone makes a claim, does not mean it represents reality. For example, consider some of the bogus claims that supposedly come from many eyewitness accounts of alien extraterrestrials and their space craft. They not only assert eyewitnesses but present blurry photos to boot! If we can question these accounts, then why should we not question claims that come from hearsay even more? Moreover, consider that the hearsay comes from ancient and unknown people that no longer live.

Unfortunately, belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds and nothing, even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possibly change their minds. We have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history, we cannot even begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least a few reliable eyewitness accounts.

Of course a historical Jesus may have existed, perhaps based loosely on a living human even though his actual history got lost, but this amounts to nothing but speculation. However we do have an abundance of evidence supporting the mythical evolution of Jesus. Virtually every detail in the gospel stories occurred in pagan and/or Hebrew stories, long before the advent of Christianity. We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence for the belief of Jesus.

So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a historical Jesus, simply ask for the author's birth date. Anyone who's birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:47 pm

The ALL important Sources

*Briant, Pierre, "Alexander the Great: Man of Action Man of Spirit, " Harry N. Abrams, 1996

*Doherty, Earl, "The Jesus Puzzle, " Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999

*Flavius, Josephus (37 or 38-circa 101 C.E.), Antiquities

*Gauvin, Marshall J., "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" (from: http://www.infidels.org/)

*Gould, Stephen Jay "Dinosaur in a Haystack, " (Chapter 2), Harmony Books, New York, 1995

*Graham, Henry Grey, Rev., "Where we got the Bible, " B. Heder Book Company, 1960

*Graves, Kersey "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, " 1875

*Helms, Randel McCraw , "Who Wrote the Gospels?", Millennium Press

*Irenaeus of Lyon (140?-202? C.E.), Against the Heresies

*Leedom, Tim C. "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, " Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993

*Massey, Gerald, "Gerald Massey's Lectures: The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ, " 1900

*McKinsey, C. Dennis "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, " Prometheus Books, 1995

*Metzger, Bruce, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, " Oxford University Press, 1968

*Pagels, Elaine, "The Gnostic Gospels, " Vintage Books, New York, 1979

*Pagels, Elaine, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, " Vintage Books, New York, 1888

*Pagels, Elaine, "The Origin of Satan, " Random House, New York, 1995

*Price, Robert M., " Deconstructing Jesus, " Prometheus Books, 2000

*Pritchard, John Paul, "A Literary Approach to the New Testament, " Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1972

*Remsberg, John E., "The Christ, " Prometheus Books

*Robertson, J.M. "Pagan Christs, " Barnes & Noble Books, 1966

*Romer, John, "Testament : The Bible and History, " Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988

*Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, "A History of Biblical Literature, " New American Library, 1962

*Spong, Bishop Shelby, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, " HarperSanFrancisco, 1991

*Tacitus (55?-117? C.E.), Annals

*Wilson, Dorothy Frances, "The Gospel Sources, some results of modern scholarship, " London, Student Christian Movement press, 1938

*The Revell Bible Dictionary, " Wynwood Press, New York, 1990

*King James Bible, 1611

*U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990

*Various issues of Bible Review magazine, published by the Biblical Archaeology Society.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:04 pm

BUMP!
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Takealook » Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:29 am

I would like to join the ranks of 'Cut and Past Scholars' and add this item to the pot. It was found on another forum and although contains the same ingredient is argued from a different viewpoint. It must be remembered that Jesus in his lifetime was regarded as a heretic and sentenced to death as a criminal by the authorities. Therefore we could hardly expect to find any official record or reference to him. For the rest of the population an oral tradition existed where it was commonly thought that committing any event to the written word would somehow taint it. However despite this the eventual written accounts demonstrate how enduring the events of Jesus life had become and this is also shown by the early Christians who were willing to give up their lives for their beliefs.

On the topic of the Turin Shroud it had been reported that the original samples of the fabric submitted for carbon dating ware taken from the corners which would have been contaminated through repeated handling of the Shroud at those point thus giving a false reading for dating purposes. It had also been mentioned that a repair stitch had been found on the cloth that is very fine and sophisticated and that the only other example ever found was in cloth that was found at Massada.

Quote
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian
Sources

Evidence from Tacitus

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the
New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy
historical document, many people are still
reluctant to believe what it says unless there is
also some independent, non-biblical testimony that
corroborates its statements. In the introduction
to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a
Christian correspondent who was told by an
agnostic friend that "apart from obscure
references in Josephus and the like," there was no
historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside
the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused
him "great concern and some little upset in [his]
spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by
asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and
if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3}
The answer to this question is, "Yes, such
collateral proof is available," and we will be
looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that
historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most
important reference to Jesus outside the New
Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's
decision to blame the Christians for the fire that
had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian
Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for
their abominations, called Christians by the
populace. Christus, from whom the name had its
origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the
reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius
Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus
checked for the moment, again broke out not only
in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even
in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and
rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the
early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus
reports Christians derived their name from a
historical person called Christus (from the
Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered
the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the
Roman method of execution known as crucifixion.
This is said to have occurred during the reign of
Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus.
This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us
about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather
enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly
checked "a most mischievous superstition," which
subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in
Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here
"bearing indirect . . . testimony to the
conviction of the early church that the Christ who
had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6}
While this interpretation is admittedly
speculative, it does help explain the otherwise
bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion
based on the worship of a man who had been
crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one
explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus
and early Christianity can be found in the letters
of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was
the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In
one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks
Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to
conduct legal proceedings against those accused of
being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to
consult the emperor about this issue because a
great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood
accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of
the information he has learned about these
Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain
fixed day before it was light, when they sang in
alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god,
and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any
wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft
or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny
a trust when they should be called upon to deliver
it up; after which it was their custom to
separate, and then reassemble to partake of
food--but food of an ordinary and innocent
kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of
interesting insights into the beliefs and
practices of early Christians. First, we see that
Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day
for worship. Second, their worship was directed to
Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in
His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets
Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ,
as to a god, as a reference to the rather
distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were
worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on
earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct,
Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping
an actual historical person as God! Of course,
this agrees perfectly with the New Testament
doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand
what early Christians believed about Jesus'
person, it also reveals the high esteem to which
they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes
that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath
not to violate various moral standards, which find
their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In
addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian
custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to
their observance of communion and the "love
feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the
Christian claim that the meal was merely food of
an ordinary and innocent kind. They were
attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made
by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual
cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day
humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on
Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same
today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus
outside the Bible can be found in the writings of
Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two
occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions
Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference
describes the condemnation of one "James" by the
Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was
"the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14}
F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's
description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the
Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us
that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus
actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there
is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing.
Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant
portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if
indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . .
wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ.
When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified,
those who had . . . come to love him did not give
up their affection for him. On the third day he
appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the
tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not
disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars
think the core of the passage originated with
Josephus, but that it was later altered by a
Christian editor, possibly between the third and
fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it
was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it
is difficult to believe that anyone but a
Christian would have made some of these
statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man
seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if
indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect.
It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it
is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said
that! It is also difficult to believe he would
have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ,
especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the
so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the
third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored
to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus'
resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a
non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of
this passage, we are still left with a good deal
of corroborating information about the biblical
Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who
performed surprising feats. And although He was
crucified under Pilate, His followers continued
their discipleship and became known as Christians.
When we combine these statements with Josephus'
later reference to Jesus as "the so-called
Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which
harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It
increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and
the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in
the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish
rabbinical writings compiled between approximately
A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is
naturally supposed that earlier references to
Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable
than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the
earliest period of compilation occurred between
A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to
Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For
forty days before the execution took place, a
herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be
stoned because he has practiced sorcery and
enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed
that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do
we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or
"Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in
Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying
that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament
say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term
"hanged" can function as a synonym for
"crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares
that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies
this term to the criminals who were crucified with
Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was
crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the
cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned?
This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders
were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement
changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified.
It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel
to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a
rather hostile source, we should not be too
surprised if Jesus is described somewhat
differently than in the New Testament. But if we
make allowances for this, what might such charges
imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close
parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance,
the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees'
accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by
Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice
this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the
New Testament claim that Jesus performed
miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were
too well attested to deny. The only alternative
was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the
charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels
Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused
Jesus of misleading the nation with his
teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate
the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful
teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this
passage from the Talmud confirms much of our
knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek
satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the
early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this
day--the distinguished personage who introduced
their novel rites, and was crucified on that
account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their
original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from
the moment that they are converted, and deny the
gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage,
and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early
Christians, he does make some significant comments
about their founder. For instance, he says the
Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their
novel rites." And though this man's followers
clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered
many of His contemporaries with His teaching that
He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is
clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus
teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian,
he taught that all men are brothers from the
moment of their conversion. That's harmless
enough. But what did this conversion involve? It
involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping
Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's
not too difficult to imagine someone being killed
for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so
explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods
combined with their worship of Jesus implies the
belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they
denied other gods in order to worship Him, they
apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any
that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus
from this examination of ancient non-Christian
sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate
that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny,
the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and
revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the
Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats.
Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian
all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and
Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate.
And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of
Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to
the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in
both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records
that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ,
or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian
indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient
non-Christian sources helps corroborate our
knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course,
there are many ancient Christian sources of
information about Jesus as well. But since the
historical reliability of the canonical gospels is
so well established, I invite you to read those
for an authoritative "life of Jesus!" quote:
Takealook
New In Town
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Wed Apr 30, 2008 4:05 pm

[quote="Takealook"]I would like to[quote]
So if you hear anyone who claims to have evidence for a witness of a historical Jesus, simply ask for the author's birth date. Anyone who's birth occurred after an event cannot serve as an eyewitness, nor can their words alone serve as evidence for that event.
Surely Takealook' wouldn't have replied if it had looked and studied what was said? Shame on you! :oops:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Takealook » Thu May 01, 2008 3:30 pm

TRIPZ

IT was really necessary to consider if a reply to your comment was worthwhile as the concept of oral tradition by ancient civilizations throughout the word, which is well documented, had gone completely over your head.

It is very natural for myself to understand this idea as since the age of 8 years old I can remember having thoughts and feelings that ran counter to traditional Christian doctrine and during the past 30 yrs and more so the last eight I have had a variety of experiences that can only be described as paranormal.

These experiences are not sought after they just occur quite randomly during normal activities sometimes years apart and are always different one from the other. When these events happen they seem normal by the virtue that they occurred but they are not. There seems to be a meshing of our physical world as we now it and another dimension. On attempting to analyze the event there is no logic that can explain it.

Now the point I am making is that in all of these years I have only told close friends but have never made fully written accounts only notes to try to rationalize what happened. So more and more now as I become older the idea comes that these experiences should be written down because if not for all intents and purposes they never took place.

The most curious thing about all this is that those early feelings are supported in The True Gospels Revealed Anew by Jesus. Additionally the paranormal experiences helped me to accept Jesus's explanation of how God carried out the Resurrection.

For anyone wishing to investigate the True Gospels for themselves the only sure way to find the correct site is to enter www.divinlove.org
Takealook
New In Town
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Thu May 01, 2008 6:57 pm

Takealook wrote:TRIPZ

IT was really necessary to consider if a reply to your comment was worthwhile as the concept of oral tradition by ancient civilizations throughout the word, which is well documented, had gone completely over your head.

It is very natural for myself to understand this idea as since the age of 8 years old I can remember having thoughts and feelings that ran counter to traditional Christian doctrine and during the past 30 yrs and more so the last eight I have had a variety of experiences that can only be described as paranormal.

These experiences are not sought after they just occur quite randomly during normal activities sometimes years apart and are always different one from the other. When these events happen they seem normal by the virtue that they occurred but they are not. There seems to be a meshing of our physical world as we now it and another dimension. On attempting to analyze the event there is no logic that can explain it.

Now the point I am making is that in all of these years I have only told close friends but have never made fully written accounts only notes to try to rationalize what happened. So more and more now as I become older the idea comes that these experiences should be written down because if not for all intents and purposes they never took place.

The most curious thing about all this is that those early feelings are supported in The True Gospels Revealed Anew by Jesus. Additionally the paranormal experiences helped me to accept Jesus's explanation of how God carried out the Resurrection.

For anyone wishing to investigate the True Gospels for themselves the only sure way to find the correct site is to enter http://www.divinlove.org

I'm sorry for my flippant retort...but as you know god is only known from within...On that note I would suggest you get some counselling to this delusional problem you are at present witnessing...Science is an amazing tool to unravelling these pesty thoughts...Good luck 'True Gospels'' :lol: :lol: :lol:

"Christian documents outside the Gospels, even at the end of the first century and beyond, show no evidence that any tradition about an earthly life and ministry of Jesus were in circulation."

Earl Doherty :wink:
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Takealook » Fri May 02, 2008 9:27 am

but as you know God is only known from within


Very well said for that is the essence of faith. You have cracked it.
Takealook
New In Town
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Postby Tripz » Sat May 03, 2008 10:07 pm

Takealook wrote:
but as you know God is only known from within


Very well said for that is the essence of faith. You have cracked it.

NO essence of faith...You miss the point completely by that assertion.
TRUTH & JUSTICE
"IL FAUT MENTIR POUR ETRE VRAI"
User avatar
Tripz
Lifer
 
Posts: 5311
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: MAGIK ROUNDABOUT

Previous

Return to Conspiracy Theories - The Outer Limits - 911 (Day the World Changed)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests