| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iasion" |
| Date: |
21 Jul 2005 10:29:40 PM |
| Object: |
Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
Greetings all,
(I was recently asked to answer a post by Pastor Dave, I see he
sometimes posts around here, and I thought readers here may be
interested.)
I was asked to answer an essay from a certain Pastor which was
presented as argument that Jesus was a historical person for whom good
evidence exists. This monograph is my answer to Pastor's specific
claims, and aims to show that there is no good evidence for Jesus'
existence in history.
For references and information and assistance and the NT and its
history, I refer to, and recommend, these sites :
Peter Kirby's Early Christian writings - a modern masterpiece :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Michael Turton's excellent online commentary on G.Mark :
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html
The Jesus Puzzle - Earl Doherty's detailed exposition of the Jesus Myth
theory :
http://www.jesuspuzzle.org/
Writings of the Church Fathers and councils at NewAdvent etc :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
Stephen Carlson's Synoptic Problem page :
http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html
Historian Richard Carrier's essays dealing with these issues :
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/
Internet Infidels - lively and educated discussions of these issues :
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60
My page summarising early non-Christian writers
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EarlyWriters.html
and a more detailed chronology of Christian writings :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html
Iasion's answer to Pastor's apologetics
=======================================
Pastor : "The documents of the New Testament are themselves historical
documents (and are, by the way, the best-attested documents in all of
antiquity.)"
A "historical document"?
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of
ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but
no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now,
CLAIMS it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal.
Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be
presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking
the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a
supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is just not true - no historian presumes an ancient book to
be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say
so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and
analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is
myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
Consider some other ancient works -
* the Golden ***** of Apuleius - this "historical document" tells the
story of how Apuleius turned into an ***** and met the gods face to face.
It dates to the very same period as the Gospels, is set in historical
places and includes historical figures and events. It has speeches and
stories and miracles and divine events, including an EMPTY TOMB scene!.
In short it is very similar the Gospels.
http://eserver.org/books/apuleius/
* the Iliad - this "historical document" is famous and very well
attested indeed. This work was seminal in Greek culture (in ancient
Greece "getting an education" meant learning Homer) and includes real
places and realistic people - to the Greeks, Homer was like the Bible.
http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html
Both of these writings are similar to the Gospels and are similarly
true - i.e. not particularly true at all. In other words being a
"historical document" means nothing about a book's truthfulness.
NT manuscript attestation
=========================
Claims about the NT being the "best-attested" confuse two UN-related
issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.
Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the best-attested document in
all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the
NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g.
Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone,
the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested
from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better
attested than the NT.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html
It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity)
compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old
copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these
copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from
before the dark ages is about a hundred.
http://faculty.bbc.edu/RDecker/documents/nmbr_manuscripts.pdf
But there are NO originals for ANY of the NT writings - all we have is
copies of copies, all varying from each other (that's right - every
single manuscript we have is slightly different from every other - not
counting very tiny scraps) from long after the alleged events :
* NO copies from 1st century,
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century (e.g. P52, P90),
* a few UNCOMPLETE copies from late 2nd / early 3rd (e.g. P75, P46),
* several fairly complete copies in 3rd / 4th century.
List by century :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html
Detailed contents of all NT MSS :
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/EGBMP.htm
And, there is considerable variation in Gospel manuscripts, and it
often DOES reach to core beliefs and events :
The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have "...this
day have I begotten thee" (echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about
when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became "..in thee I
am well pleased". If scribes can change the alleged words of God, they
can change anything.
Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four
different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending
being 16:8
Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed
the Gospels.
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html
These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions
between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another
very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php
Quantity of manuscripts irrelevant to truth
===========================================
But more importantly, Pastor, like many apologists, has confused two
fundamentally different issues - he is arguing that because we have so
many copies this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not
true - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the
contents. Consider -
* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD
- does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about
1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the
Iliad?
* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies
exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does
this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many
dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book
of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this
work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon
after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly
more true than the NT?
No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work
gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists like
Pastor repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.
NT Authorship
=============
Pastor: "The New Testament alone consists of twenty-seven books written
by at least eight different authors. Furthermore, of those eight, only
three (Matthew, Peter, and John) were a part of the original twelve
disciples. Of the remaining five, two were originally skeptical
concerning Jesus' identity. One was a great persecutor of Christians
and even consented to the execution of the first New Testament martyr.
One was a gentile, and one was a young boy when Jesus lived and taught.
Additionally, these New Testament authors came from a wide variety of
backgrounds and experiences. One was a tax collector, another a
physician. Another was a highly educated Pharisee. At least two were
fishermen while two others grew up as the children of a carpenter and
most likely learned that trade."
Pastor is merely repeating the faithful beliefs of Christians here -
the beliefs he presents are straight out the actual NT itself - in
other words he is using the stories INSIDE the NT to try and prove the
NT is reliable. This is called circular reasoning. No mainstream
scholar believes the Gospels to be history, because they are not
supported by any reliable outside evidence, and because they contain
much material that is religious mythology.
The NT must be judged on its merits like any ancient writing - and it
HAS been so judged and evaluated, it is one of the most studied works
in Western culture - and what follows is some of the results of that
study :
Firstly -
With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for
sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible. It may surprise
many readers, but modern scholars do not think any of the NT books were
written by the person whose name it bears, not even the Gospels (not
counting Paul.) Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind
about Paul either, but some one person wrote most of those letters and
we call him Paul mostly for convenience.
Rev. Dr. Hooykaas : the Gospels "appeared anonymously. The titles
placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later
ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible
for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).
In the earliest years - the word "Gospel" is used to mean essentially
"our teachings". It began to be used to refer to writings in the early
2nd century.
The four Gospels we know now, were originally anonymous documents of
unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works
- we see various references to Gospels without authors by 2nd century
Christians : Ignatius(possibly), Aristides, Justin, Polycarp,
Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, and Autolycus.
Papias does make some unclear comments possibly in about 130CE which
refer to writings by Mark, and writings by Matthew - however his
comments do NOT match our modern Gospels, and he does NOT use the word
"Gospel", and he makes it clear he holds such writings in LOW regard.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Aristides, possibly just before Justin, described a singular, un-named
Gospel that had "been preached for a short time". This is an important
clue - a church father who mentions "the Gospel, as it is called" -
showing that it is merely called "the Gospel", no name, and singular.
Furthermore he explicitly says it had only been preached for a "short
time", perhaps a few years - evidence for when the Gospel became known
in Christian circles.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html
Justin in about 150CE is the first to make lengthy quotes of Gospels
almost like the modern ones, but not quite, e.g. he has Jesus rising on
the eighth day. He calls them "memoirs of the apostles" as well as
"Gospels" but gives NO authors' names.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html
Tatian possibly wrote an important work called the "diaTessaron"
(literally "from four", implying a harmony of four, meaning a harmony
of four Gospels) about 172CE (after he split from the early Christian.
This numbering of the Gospels as four seems to occur slightly before
they are actually named, and may have come about because Tatian
inherited the "memoirs of the Apostles" from Justin, and there were
four of them, but they had not yet been named.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html
It was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current
names with Irenaeus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html
G.Mark
======
It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be
written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for
several reasons :
* G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
* G.Mark shows dependence on oral tradition,
* G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
* Irenaeus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
* G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/gosp1.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton's great work on G.Mark:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html
It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this
seems unlikely for several other reasons -
* there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter's
secretary,
* G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish
scriptures, not recorded conversations,
* G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only
mean they are fiction.
* Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter
un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the
empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a
number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A
secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray
him like that.
It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark
(and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to
G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but "adapted as needed" ...
"but not in order". This just does not match at all well with G.Mark,
which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted
words of Peter.
G.Matthew
=========
It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by
a disciple, because :
* it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making
changes based on theology, not history
* it conflicts with statements by Papias and Irenaeus,
* it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of
G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this
just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in
Greek.
1,2 Peter
=========
Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2
different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably
written in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
G.John
======
Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness -
because :
* the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring
anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
* at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and
thus rejected),
* it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
False NT attributions
======================
The same is true of all the NT documents (apart from Paul1) - NONE are
by an eye-witness, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never
met Jesus -
* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's web site
or in Brown's NT Commentary e.g.
No NT author met Jesus
======================
So,
of the NT authors we find -
* Paul only met Jesus in a VISION,
* several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke
does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to
eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who
never met Jesus.
In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that
NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus.
You can check this is any modern commentary - try Brown's or the New
Jerome or see Peter Kirby's.
Human realism does not make a story true
========================================
Pastor : "Few biographies portray the flaws of their leading characters
with such candor."
The Gospels are not biographies, they are religious stories. There is
no evidence of candor - we have no outside information to compare it
with, and the Gospels contain events which in any other book would be
obviously considered NOT true (the miracles.)
Pastor : "Consider the following. At one point or another, the gospels
portray Jesus' disciples as skeptical, faithless, selfish,
argumentative, fearful, and even defiant. The scriptures even record an
event in which Jesus rebuked Peter with the words, "Get thee behind Me,
Satan!" (Mt. 16:23). Further, the gospels chronicle events in which the
disciples fought among themselves for personal power (Lk. 22:24), fled
for their lives in terror (Mt. 26:56), openly forsook Jesus (Mt.
26:73-74), and even considered abandoning the faith altogether (Jn.
21:3). Clearly, the gospel writers were not afraid to expose character
flaws in their leading figures. Additionally, the gospels portray Jesus
as a man of limits. At one point, He is shown in a state of such
fatigue that He remains sleeping in a boat during a violent storm (Mt.
8:24-26). In another event, Jesus is shown needing to lay hands upon a
man a second time in order to heal him (Mk. 8:22-25). Jesus was even
portrayed as vulnerable when at the end of His life, He appealed to the
Father to remove "the cup" containing the horror of His impending
crucifixion (Lk 22:42).Throughout the scriptures, Jesus is shown
displaying a variety of emotions such as love, joy, anger,
disappointment, agitation, and reflection. Whether it was His sadness
when lamenting the plight of Jerusalem (Mt. 23:37), His rage at the
hypocrisy of the religious leaders of His day (Mt. 23), or His
tenderness when receiving little children (Mk. 10:14-16), Jesus was
portrayed as what He truly was - REAL."
Pardon?
A story that shows some realistic human flaws and emotions must be
really TRUE ?
Hardly.
Any good story is written to seem realistic -
Rhett Butler has human flaws and emotions - does that make Gone With
the Wind true?
No.
Apuleius has some very human and silly moments - does that make The
Golden ***** of Apuleius true?
No.
Frodo Baggins is a very real character with believable emotions and
flaws - does that make the Lord of The Rings true?
No.
The argument that a story with believable characters and real flaws and
emotions proves a story is TRUE is just not credible.
Mind you - lets not forget that many elements of the NT stories are
transparent fiction - weird miracles, darkness at noon, dead saints
wandering the streets, crazy happenings at the tomb, and characters who
show completely UN-believable behaviour (in G.Mark the disciples are
dullards who don't understand anything Jesus says, even when he spells
it out.) Much of the NT sounds just like Aesop's fables or other
ancient myths - entirely UN-believable in many places.
Pastor's entire argument here seems to be : "well, the Gospels seem so
real - they must be true! "
Faithful assertions, not based on any facts. Essentially, this is a
Christian preaching Christian beliefs based on Christian stories - but
would Pastor belief a Mormon preaching Mormon beliefs, based on Mormon
stories?
No.
Pastor : "It is hard to imagine any biographer being more objective in
his account of a person's life than the gospel writers were when
recounting the life of Jesus."
Pastor's beliefs notwithstanding, the Gospels are not biographies, they
are religious mythology. How on earth can they be "objective" when we
have no outside evidence to compare it with? The only evidence we have
is the stories themselves, which are full of all sorts of un-believable
legends.
ACTS (and G.Luke)
=================
Pastor : "There is an important fact that is ignored by most critics of
the New Testament. This fact is that at least one New Testament book
was authored by a professional writer who was commissioned to chronicle
the history of the early New Testament Church.The book of Acts is a
legitimate and highly credible history of the Church during the first
century. It was written by Luke, a Gentile convert. Luke was sponsored
to write this history by a man named Theophilus. Although little is
known of Theophilus, most authorities believe he was a high-ranking
Roman official. Luke introduces the book of Acts as well as his gospel
with a tribute to this man."
False.
Acts is not ignored - it is one of the most studied and commented upon
books in the bible, vital to our understanding of early Christianity.
G.Luke and Acts are generally considered together, being pretty
certainly two volumes of one work by one author.
But,
we have NO idea who A.Luke really was, as both G.Luke and Acts are
anonymous - the attribution to Luke the physician in Colossians is
later church tradition. Yes, the work addressed to Theophilus (it is
not sure who this is, the only one we know is late 2nd century), which
does not in any way prove anything - books were often addressed to
someone - so what? There is NO evidence A.Luke was a professional
writer, and NO evidence that he was commissioned to write a history.
And,
it is quite clear that G.Luke/Acts was not written by an apostle in the
early period, e.g. -
"Nevertheless it is clear that neither the two books in their totality,
nor even the prologues, can be attributed to a writer of apostolic time
and, consequently, not to Luke." (Alfred Loisy, The Origins of the NT,
Chapter VI, pg.142-3)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/chapter6.html
Most importantly, G.Luke, like G.Matthew, copies a great deal,
word-for-word, from G.Mark - not the action of an eye-witness. Stories
and sayings similar to G.Luke (or perhaps an early version of the
Gospel) was quoted by Christian writers, BEFORE it was given a name -
e.g. Clement of Rome, Aristides, Marcion, and Justin. The Gospel of
Luke is simply another case of an originally anonymous Gospel,
eventually accepted by Christian as authoritative and eventually
attributed to Luke.
Luke/Acts are late documents
=============================
Some of the reasons why G.Luke/Acts is dated fairly late, and NOT by
someone who knew Paul, are as follows :
* Its infancy interest, pushed back to the birth of John. One is
reminded that in the Book of James (the Protevangelium), half a century
or more later, this infancy interest is pushed still farther back to
the nativity of the Virgin herself.
* Its resurrection interest, including a whole series of appearances,
visits, eatings, penetration of locked doors, protracted through forty
days. This is in marked contrast to Matthew's (which was probably also
Mark's) account and is much nearer to the second-century
representations of Jesus' long post-resurrection conversations with the
apostles, e.g., the Epistle of the Apostles, ca. A.D. 150.
* Its doctrine of the holy Spirit, which pervades both volumes. The
holy Spirit is to come over Mary, 1:35; it fills Elizabeth, 1:42, and
Zechariah, 1:67. It came down upon Jesus, 3:22; he was full of the holy
Spirit, 4:1. It is on almost every page of the Acts, the whole
narrative of which seems to float upon a sea of it. Luke evidently has
a definite and developed doctrine of the holy Spirit, which was the
fruit of no little religious reflection.
* The interest in punitive miracle, a feature conspicuous in the
Elijah-Elisha cycles of Kings but wholly wanting from Mark and Matthew.
It marks the opening scene of Luke (Zechariah is struck dumb) and plays
a prominent part in the Acts: Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead,
5:5, 10; Elymas is struck blind, 13:11; compare 12:23. In this trait we
are on our way to the fondness for punitive miracle in the infancy
gospels of the second century, which also found it edifying, e.g., the
Gospel of Thomas.
* The passing of the Jewish controversy; this interest, so acute in
Paul's day, has become a dead issue when Luke is written.
* The interest in Christian psalmody. Luke preserves hymn after hymn,
1:42, 46, 68; 2:14, 29-the Magnificat, the Benedictus, the Gloria in
Excelsis, the Nunc Dimittis. Nowhere else do we find any such early
interest in Christian poesy, except in Eph. 5:14 and in the arias,
choruses, and antiphonies of the Revelation. Already that liturgical
endowment, which Walter Pater once said was one of the special gifts of
the early church, was beginning to appear.
* Church organization; the Twelve appear in the Acts as a sort of
college of apostles, stationed in Jerusalem, watching over the progress
of the Christian mission. With them are associated the elders, 15:2, 6,
22; 16:4, etc. Paul is represented as appointing elders in each church,
14:23, so the presbyteral organization is recognized as established,
though Paul himself in his list of types of Christian leadership in I
Cor. 12:28 says nothing about elders. The office of deacon is also
traced back to the earliest days of the church and given added dignity
and luster by the story of Stephen, chapters 6, 7. Luke's account of
Ananias and Sapphira shows an interest in church funds when he wrote
the Acts, and the story of Dorcas sewing for the poor, 9:39, also
points to a considerable degree of organization. The point made here is
not as to the fact of such embezzlement or charitable doings in the
church, but of the writer's interest in recording them. Here belongs
also the emphasis upon baptism as a condition of church membership,
forgiveness, and salvation that is so characteristic of the Acts. 2:38;
8:12, 36; 9:18; 10:47; 16:15, 33.
* The Speaking with Tongues; this was simply ecstatic utterance with
Paul, I Corinthians, chapters 12-14, but in the Acts it has come to be
a miraculous endowment with the power to speak foreign languages, Acts
2:4-11.
(The alleged silence of Luke about Paul's death)
* Paul is dead; that he is still living when the curtain falls upon the
Acts in 28:30, 31, is outweighed by his farewell to the Ephesian
elders, 20:25, with its solemn declaration that none of them would ever
see his face again, underscored by its repetition in 20:38: "they were
especially saddened at his saying that they would never see his face
again." Such presentiments are remembered and recorded only when they
have proved true.
* Paul has risen to hero stature. He is not only dead; he has become a
hallowed memory. He is no longer a man struggling and grappling with
difficulties, as in his letters; he has become a heroic figure and
towers above priests, officers, governors, and kings. This is simply
the retrospect of history. Lincoln rose in a generation into a heroic
figure, very different from the man his contemporaries knew. The manner
of his death no doubt contributed to this, but Paul's death too made
its contribution to the reverence in which he came to be held, for he
was probably the first of the Roman martyrs. Time has to play its part
in the development of these attitudes. The success of the Greek mission
naturally drew attention to the figure of the leader of that movement.
* The emergence of the sects; men of their own number were appearing
and teaching perversions of the truth in order to draw the disciples
away after them, 20:30. Apart from this reference to them in Acts the
first we hear of the sects is in Eph. 4:14; compare 4:3-6, and in the
Revelation, where the mysterious sect of the Nicolaitans is mentioned
with abhorrence, 2:6, 15. Early in the second century the Docetists
appear (cf. I, II John, Ignatius), then the Marcionites and Gnostics,
and then the Montanists. Here, again. Acts seems to belong to the time
of Ephesians and the Revelation.
(Edgar Goodspeed, The Work of Luke, pg.192-193)
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/goodspeed/ch12.html
Acts manuscripts highly variant
===============================
Also note - Acts is the single most textually suspect book of the whole
NT - it comes it two different versions, one considerably longer (about
10%) than the other. Manuscripts of Acts shows the most variation of
ANY NT book.
Regarding historicity, while Acts is accurate in places, its
reliability (and G.Luke) as history is hotly disputed, as there are
many apparent errors :
* Luke 2:2 and 1:5 is wrong about Quirinius,
* Acts 5:37 is wrong about Judas the Galilean,
* Acts 10:1 is probably wrong about the Italica cohort,
* Acts 5:34-39 is probably wrong about Gamaliel's tolerance,
(from Brown's NT commentary, Doubleday, 1996, page 321)
Also, Acts does not seem typical of histories of the day :
"Acts does not match the pretensions of contemporary historiography
either in style or subject-matter"
(Oxford Bible Commentary, OUP, 2001, pg. 1029)
Of course, some parts of Acts are transparent mythology, such as the
Pentecost stories.
The date of G.Luke/Acts is problematic, scholarly opinion varies from
late 1st century to early 2nd century. Of particular interest the
argument that Acts depends on Josephus (c.96) :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/chapter6.html
So,
to summarise the situation of G.Luke / Acts -
* it is a late document(s), from decades after the war, by an unknown
author, not an eyewitness, who never met Paul,
* the Gospel is copied largely from G.Mark,
* manuscripts of Acts are the most variant of all the NT books,
* it contains miraculous stories,
* it is not typical of histories of the period,
* it has some historical inaccuracies,
* Paul in Acts does not well match Paul own writings (e.g. the VARIANT
stories about the appearances of Jesus)
In short, it is a religious hagiography - legends and myths, not
history.
No Witnesses
============
Pastor : "With the words "until the day in which He was taken up," Luke
is reporting as historical fact that Jesus had risen from the dead.
Although many skeptics today argue the veracity of such a claim, it
would have been almost impossible to rebut it during the first century.
According to the apostle Paul, the eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection
numbered in the hundreds."
Indeed - IF 500 witnesses had really left evidence about a
resurrection, we can be SURE it would be considered a real event
impossible to rebut.
But we DON'T have 500 witnesses.
We have the claims of ONE person who saw Jesus in a VISION, saying
OTHER people also "saw" Jesus, just like he did.
This cannot possibly be considered evidence for anything historical.
What about the Book of Mormon - it starts with the sworn testimony of
12 people who claim to have actually seen the magic "plates" - does
that make it true?
No.
What about the mysterious "ghost" who lead Caesar's army across the
Rubicon, actually taking and blowing a trumpet and marching them across
- this figure is recorded in the historical accounts of the day,
apparently as based on eyewitness accounts, and was seen by thousands
or Roman soldiers - does Pastor believe this really happened?
A claim by ONE person who saw Jesus in a vision, that OTHER people also
"saw" Jesus is no proof of anything.
Pastor: "Clearly, the Bible record was chronicled by men of diverse
backgrounds and educational levels. These men were very different from
each other. However, despite all these differences, they did have
something in common. Virtually every one of them claimed to have known
Jesus personally. Therefore, they were speaking as eyewitnesses.
Consider the words of Peter, the author of two epistles bearing his
name."
False.
NOT ONE of these documents claims to be an eye-witness to Jesus of
Nazareth -
* Paul "saw" Jesus in a VISION.
* the later epistles of Paul were forged long afterwards by an unknown
person who never met Jesus, and who makes no claim to have done so.
* the epistles of Peter were forged long afterwards by an unknown
person who never met Jesus, and who makes no claim to have done so.
* the epistles of John were forged long afterwards by an unknown person
who never met Jesus, and who makes no claim to have done so.
* The Gospels were written decades later by unknown people who never
met Jesus and made no claim to have done so (A.Luke does NOT claim to
be an eye-witness at all.)
If you compare Pastor's preaching from what we read IN the NT stories
with what the external evidence and expert opinion shows - we see that
no Christian writer met a historical Jesus, not one single book in the
NT is really by a an actual person who met Jesus of Nazareth.
Most of the letters, like the Gospels, were written after the war, by
people unknown, who were not personally involved - this is clear and
present evidence of myth.
External evidence
=================
Now we move on the external, historical evidence - I present here a
summary of the writer or writing usually cited as "evidence" for Jesus
-
JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)
Yes,
The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best
evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ
as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus
(who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus -
Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the
passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still
absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later
interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm
In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a
corrupt form of a lost original.)
But, yes,
it COULD just be actual evidence for Jesus - late, corrupt,
controversial but just POSSIBLY real historical evidence.
Such is the weakness of the evidence that this suspect passage is
considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Jesus of
Nazareth.
TACITUS (c.112CE)
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war)
Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this
passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not
correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not
possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph"
or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against
Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and
religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early
Christians who actively sought such passages.)
This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories
circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)
About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the
war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god,
but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html
SUETONIUS (c.115CE)
Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years
after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to
trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic
name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html
IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)
The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
QUADRATUS (c.125CE)
Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So,
Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html
THALLUS (date unknown)
We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE
of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who
quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the
darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an
eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the
Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he
merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians
MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the
supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)
Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html
So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
PHLEGON (c.140)
Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen,
Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer
to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no
evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was
merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians
argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.
VALENTINUS (c.140CE)
In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome,
but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about Jesus.
So,
Valentinus is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html
POLYCARP (c.155CE)
Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the
Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So,
Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
LUCIAN (c.170CE)
Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian
satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century
lampooning of Christians.
GALEN (late 2nd C.)
Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and
briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.
NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)
In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative
regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius
mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it
had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.
TALMUD (3rd C. and later)
There are some possible references in the Talmud, but:
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be
(unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus,
and very different to the Gospel stories (e.g. one story has "Jesus"
born about 100BC.)
So,
the Talmud contains NO evidence for Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel
stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm
The Acts of Pilate (3rd, 4th C.)
Pastor: "Justin Marty wrote about 150 A.D. In one of his writings, he
explained that the events of Christ's crucifixion could be validated by
the report of Pontius Pilate."
Justin does refer to such a report or Acts of Pilate, but no such
document existed, until forged in two versions in 3rd and 4th century.
The story Tertullian tells is patently absurd.
MARA BAR SERAPION (date unknown)
A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly
who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.
NO external contemporary evidence for Jesus
===========================================
Pastor : "Whether it was the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, Phlegon,
Origin, Thallus, Justin Martyr, Josephus, or even Pontius Pilate, the
existence of the biblical Jesus is unimpeachable. Jesus of Nazareth did
live
and His life had a powerful impact on the course of history."
False.
When the evidence of these writers is actually checked we find that -
* none are contemporary, all are from after the war(s),
* some merely repeat 2nd century Christian beliefs (e.g. Tacitus,
Pliny, Galen, Lucian),
* some are from LONG afterwards (e.g. Talmud),
* some are just 2nd century Christian believers (Origen, Justin)
* some are total forgeries (Acts of Pilate),
* some are unrelated or even lost comments made to seem like evidence
(e.g. Thallus, Phlegon, Suetonius, Numenius)
The single credible evidence is Josephus - yet this "best evidence" for
Jesus is late 1st century, at least tampered with, at worst a total
forgery. Such is the weakness of the case for Jesus.
Pastor : "It is interesting to note that the one thing enemies of
Christianity could have done to completely shut down the Christian
movement was never successfully attempted. Understand that the
resurrection was the central theme of the Christian church. Therefore,
if the resurrection of Jesus Christ could be proven untrue,
Christianity would collapse."
False.
Firstly - many stories and claims and myths and legends date from that
era, but were never refuted - so what?
Did anyone produce a detailed refutation of the Heaven's Gate cult?
No.
Did anyone produce a detailed refutation of the Jim Jones cult?
No.
Does that make their crazy views true ?
Of course not - fringe cults may be ignored or they may be ridiculed or
they may be refuted in detail, or they may not - the lack of a detailed
rebuttal does not in anyway make cult views true.
Anyway - when the Gospels came to prominence in late 2nd century,
we DO see a detailed rebuttal of the Gospels.
Early refutations of Christianity
=================================
The words and phrases used by early writers to refer to Christians and
Christianity include :
"fables" "lie" "myths" "superstition" "empty rumour"
"alter the originals over and over" "invented"
"base and ignorant creed making fishermen"
"blasphemy" "spurious" "counterfeit" "contradicts"
"refuted because they disagree"
This is not the sign of a new truth being accepted - it is obviously
the EXACT OPPOSITE - a wacky new cult, initially mostly ignored,
sometimes ridiculed and rejected with dismissive comments.
Jewish responses to Christianity
================================
The Jewish response is just what we would expect of a wacky new cult -
initially they ignore it. But late in the 1st century, as more Jews
leave for Christianity, the Jews formally BAN the Christians from their
synagogues and curse them as "minim". And lets not forget the Gospels
arose sometime after the war, the Jews had a LOT more to worry about
than refuting some a new cult.
Later, of course, when Christianity is rising to power, and the Jews
have recovered from the Roman destructions, they DO try to discredit
Jesus with all sorts of horrible stories being told -
* Jesus is a ***** (a mamzer) born from Mary's adultery with a Roman
soldier,
* Jesus is a child conceived in the "time of separation" (during
menstruation),
* Jesus was a evil magician who tried to lead people astray,
This is not the sign of the Jews unable to refute Christianity - on the
contrary - it's the sign of a new cult which is at first ignored, then
ridiculed and attacked when it starts to become a threat.
Variant Christian views
=======================
In the formative period of Christianity, the 2nd century, we see all
sorts of disagreement about specific Christian claims :
The epistles of John mention other Christians who do not believe in a
son of God, and attack Christians who do not believe Jesus came in the
flesh.
The epistle of Polycarp also describes those who do not accept that
Jesus came in the flesh.
Consider the astonishing case of Minucius Felix - he explicitly
rejected the worship of a man on a cross as a Christian belief, he
explicitly denied that God could become man. That's a 2nd century
church father who explicitly rejected the incarnation and the
crucifixion - 2 central beliefs of Christians.
Many other disagreements are expressed in the 2nd century :
* Timothy warning against the fables of genealogies,
* Marcion denied Jesus was born of Mary,
* gnostics such as Basilides and Bardesanes claimed Jesus was a phantom
or spiritual being,
* the docetae argue Jesus was an illusion,
* Barnabas denies Christ was "son of David",
* forged letters warning about forgeries and "other christs"
In short - the 2nd century is full of refutations and rebuttals as the
varying Christian sub-sects argued about what was "really true" about
Jesus.
This is not the sign of a historical event which was not refuted - its
a clear sign of the exact opposite - religious mythology being argued
over.
Pagan responses to Christianity
===============================
Initially, the new cult is largely ignored, but ridiculed by a few
writers -
* Tacitus - "a class hated for their abominations", "a most mischievous
superstition"
* Pliny - "this mad sect"
* Lucian - "misguided creatures"
This is not the sign of a grand new truth being accepted - it is the
sign of a wacky new cult which barely rated a dismissive mention at
first.
Later on, when Christianity and the Gospels first rose to prominence,
they DID receive detailed rebuttals.
Celsus specifically attacked the Gospels as "fiction" based on myths,
and he claimed the Gospels were changed over and over to deflect
criticism. Hoffman's reconstruction has quotes such as these :
"Clearly the Christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story
of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians
are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to
conceal this monstrous fiction"
Celsus' attack was so damaging to the church, that they attempted to
erase it from history, we only have quotes of it because of angry
Christians who answered his critique.
This is not the sign of external agreement on Christian claims - it is
demonstrably the exact opposite - a specific attack that the Gospels
were FICTION, an attack so damaging the church tried to burn every copy
of it.
A few generations later, as the church is consolidating its power, a
pagan historian Porphyry wrote another critique of Christian beliefs
"Against the Christians", including such criticism such as :
"The evangelists were fiction writers-- not observers or eyewitnesses
to the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing
his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion"
"Anyone will recognize that the [gospels] are really fairy tales if he
takes the time to read further into this nonsense of a story..."
"Another section in the gospel deserves comment, for it is likewise
devoid Of sense and full of implausibility; I mean that absurd story
about Jesus sending his apostles across the sea ahead of him after a
banquet, then walking across to them 'at the fourth watch of the
night'...Those who know the region well tell us that, in fact, there is
no 'sea' in the locality but only a tiny lake which springs from a
river that flows through the hills of Galilee near Tiberias... Mark
seems to be stretching a point to extremities when he writes that
Jesus-- after nine hours had passed-- decided in the tenth to walk
across to his disciples who had been floating about on the pond for the
duration... It is fables like this one that we judge the gospel to be a
cleverly woven curtain, each thread of which requires careful scrutiny"
Then, just as Christianity had come to be the state religion, the Roman
emperor Julian rejected the faith and wrote his own refutation of
Christianity, "Against the Galileans", including comments such as :
".. why do you worship this spurious son of his whom has never been
recognised as his own", and "You however, I know not why, foist on him
a counterfeit son".
Note this telling criticism of Julian, the educated Roman emperor :
"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the
well-known writers of that time - the events happened in the reign of
Tiberius or Claudius - then you may consider that I speak falsely on
all matters"
Here we see Julian explicitly state that Jesus is UNKNOWN TO HISTORY.
There is no doubt from this that early Christianity was dismissed as a
cult based on lies and myths. Yet somehow apologists like Pastor
pretend that these writers are supporting the veracity of the
resurrection!
Pastor : "Secular history goes into considerable detail when describing
Jesus Christ and His effect on history. The following are twelve
aspects regarding Jesus Christ and Christianity that are addressed in
the secular historical record."
False.
Absolutely wrong, as has been shown above.
Secular history does NOT describe Jesus Christ in the sense that he is
recorded as a player in history - that is NOT what the documents
detailed above show. On the contrary what we see is LATER writers
mentioning Christians and their views, usually in totally CRITICAL and
SCEPTICAL ways.
Yet faithful Christians still trot out this tired old list of "evidence
for Jesus", even though the whole pack of cards has serious problems in
every single case, with many being misunderstanding at best, or
deception at worst (e.g. Suetonius, Thallus and Phlegon - none mention
Jesus at all, but they are always on the list.)
Pastor : "However, history records no legitimate attempt to invalidate
the resurrection with credible evidence. This is because there was no
credible evidence to prove Jesus was not resurrected as the scriptures
claim."
On the contrary, this was largely because Christianity was originally
seen as just another wacky cult which took a long while to be noticed.
It was dismissed as "ruinous superstition" by Pliny and Tacitus, it was
ridiculed as being a cult of easily lead fools (Lucian). And there WERE
specific refutations of Christian myths :
Celsus explicitly attacked the Gospels as "FICTION" .. "based on
MYTHS".
Porphyry attacked the evangelists as "INVENTORS - not historians"
Julian derided the Christians as "INVENTING" a "SPURIOUS" son of god.
The church did their best to DESTROY all these critiques, and did such
a good job that faithful apologists like Pastor have never even heard
of them.
Pastor : "Clearly, the voice of both the secular and New Testament
records speak dynamically regarding a real biblical Jesus. His life and
teachings are thoroughly documented by eyewitness testimony as well as
the historical record of objective and highly credible sources."
False.
What the evidence shows, as presented above, makes it clear that both -
* the CHRISTIAN record has NOTHING written by an eye-witness to a
historical Jesus,
and
* the historical record has NO contemporary evidence of a historical
Jesus.
Instead we have a spiritual being Iesous Christos, whose myth grew in
stages, and then after the war(s) began to be seen as a historical
figure, this caused a battle of opinions, the literalists won, then
opposing views were erased.
OT Prophesies
=============
Pastor : "However, there is an even more dramatic historical record
regarding this man called Jesus. In addition to the 27 books of the New
Testament that reflect back on Jesus' life, there are 39 books of the
Old Testament which describe Jesus' life virtually centuries before He
lived. These books describe in extraordinary detail the biblical
Jesus.Included in their chronicle is a detailed description of His
lineage, His birth, His teachings, His miracles, His betrayal, His
crucifixion, His resurrection, and His ascension to heaven. These
prophecies span the pages of the Old Testament from the third chapter
of Genesis to the third chapter of Malachi. There are virtually
hundreds of prophecies regarding Jesus Christ. Consider the words of
Sidney Collette."
Well, lets be frank - scholars do not believe these "prophesies" for a
moment. Even the early critics of Christianity could see the prophesies
were nonsense (the birth prophesies were rubbished by early critics
such as Celsus.)
Furthermore, the people who wrote the Jewish scriptures, and who still
base their worship on it today - are absolutely clear that NONE of
these passages are really a prophesy of Jesus. Christian apologists
must then claim the Jews are wrong about their own scriptures.
Lets have brief look at some of these "prophesies" anyway :
Jer. 23:5-6
He would be a descendent of David.
Lk. 1:32-33
The Gospels were crafted from the text of the OT, of course they show
echoes of it. G.Mark wrote the Gospel using elements of the suffering
servant and messiah figures to build his character Jesus - of COURSE it
shows echoes of the book it was crafted from.
This is no more miraculous than finding elements of the Lord of The
Rings in the earlier The Hobbit. Let's see - in The Hobbit it says
(i.e. it "prophesies") that a wizard will defeat the dark lord; and lo
and behold! in the Lord of The Rings, we see the wizard DOES defeat the
dark lord! A prophesy has come true! Gandalf is Lord! What nonsense.
Mal. 3:1
He would be preceded by a forerunner (John the Baptist).
Lk. 1:17
Every person in history could be said to have had a forerunner. This is
no prophecy.
Isa. 7:14
He would be born of a virgin.
Mt. 1:23
A true classic - Isaiah 7:14 is NOT a prophetic passage at all. It
tells the story of a king threatened by an enemy, and it happens his
wife is pregnant at the time. The king is promised that he will soon
defeat his enemies, before the child is born safely. And that is just
what happens - the battle is won, the child is then born in peace
(which is what happens in Isaiah a bit later). It has NOTHING to do
with a future prophecy, its a completely false claim.
Mic. 5:2
He would be born in Bethlehem.
Mt. 2:5-6
Another classic - this passage talks about a CLAN "Bethlehem
Ephrathah", NOT a village called "Bethlehem" - it says nothing about a
prophesy.
Jer. 31:15
Children would be slaughtered.
Mt. 2:18
Hardly a rare event.
In short, none of these alleged "prophesies" stand up to scrutiny, and
no scholar gives them a moments thought.
Faith
=====
Pastor : "Was Jesus of Nazareth a real historical figure? Did He walk
the countryside of Palestine and preach a powerful message about a
magnificent Kingdom? Was He crucified and more importantly, was He
resurrected from the dead as the scriptures declare? Further, is the
impact of Jesus' life thoroughly documented in both the biblical and
historical record? The answer to these questions is categorically yes!
Jesus lived and taught just as the biblical record asserts. Despite
what critics might claim, the proof of Jesus' existence is
overwhelming. It is interesting to note that there were also critics in
Jesus' time who rejected Him and His gospel. This was done despite the
mountain of evidence that proved He was in fact the promised Messiah."
Well, Pastor preached many claims about Jesus, but we saw none of his
claims really stand up to scrutiny -
* The NT is not the "best attested" writing from antiquity,
* even if it was, it says nothing about the truth of the stories,
* not one single Christian writer was an eye-witness to any Jesus,
* the Gospels stories are lifted from the Jewish scriptures,
* they contain miracles and magic which are not believed as true in any
other book,
* the Gospels and epistles tell different stories about Jesus,
* most of the NT (and many subsequent writings) were FORGED by unknown
hands,
* no contemporary writer mentions Jesus,
* all alleged "evidence" for Jesus is late, and/or suspect, or not
about Jesus at all
In short, Jesus shows all the signs of being a myth.
Iasion
Quentin David Jones
.
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 01:11:14 AM |
|
|
"Iasion" <quentinj@iinet.net.au> wrote
Iasion's answer to Pastor's apologetics
=======================================
Pastor : "The documents of the New Testament are themselves historical
documents (and are, by the way, the best-attested documents in all of
antiquity.)"
A "historical document"?
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of
ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but
no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now,
CLAIMS it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal.
Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be
presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking
the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a
supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is just not true - no historian presumes an ancient book to
be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say
so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and
analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is
myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
You seem to think that arguing means refuting everything your opponent says.
However pastor's claim is self-evidently true. The evidence is,
overwhelmingly, written evidence. And of course it is all evidence by people
who believed there was a historical individual called Jesus.
The documents are well attested because there are far more early manuscripts
of the New Testament in circulation than of any other comparbale literature.
So we can do things like look at textual variants, which is impossible to do
with most literature from the period.
Of course an assertion by a historical figure doesn't mean that the
assertion must necesarily be true. For instance one might quite properly be
sceptical that Vespasian had the power to cure diseases. However what you
are arguing for is a type of radical scepticism - not only are the
implausible claims wrong, but the very existence of Vespasian must be open
to question. No historian approaches his sources with that type of
scepticism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iasion" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 02:49:34 AM |
|
|
Greetings,
You seem to think that arguing means refuting everything your opponent says.
I analysed his claims, checked them against the facts, and showed he
was wrong. You ignored it all, as usual.
However Pastor's claim is self-evidently true.
Which claim?
I SHOWED he was wrong,
you ignored it all,
and repeated your unfounded faithful beliefs.
The evidence is, overwhelmingly, written evidence.
Yet none of it is historical evidence for Jesus.
And of course it is all evidence by people who believed there was a historical individual called Jesus.
Many people believe Sherlock Homles was real.
BELIEF means nothing.
The documents are well attested because there are far more early manuscripts of the New Testament in circulation than of any other comparbale literature.
I showed this was false in my essay.
and even if it were true - so what?
We have MILLIONS of copies of Harry Potter books - VASTLY more than NT
MSS - so you will therefore be converting to Potterism.
However what you are arguing for is a type of radical scepticism - not only are the implausible claims wrong, but the very existence of Vespasian must be open
to question.
False.
You just don't get it.
Among the VAST body of historical evidence for Vespasian are a few
supernatural stories, which are rightly discounted.
But,
Among the VAST body of supernatural stories and midrash about Jesus are
at best, a tiny few weak, late, corrupt pieces of POSSIBLE historical
evidence.
No historian approaches his sources with that type of scepticism.
False.
Historians CHECK the evidence,
FAITHFUL believers like you don't.
Iasion
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 01:50:29 PM |
|
|
"Iasion" <quentinj@iinet.net.au> wrote
False.
You just don't get it.
Among the VAST body of historical evidence for Vespasian are a few
supernatural stories, which are rightly discounted.
Vespasian denial would be just as much a kook theory as Jesus Denial. But do
we have as many as fifty documents written within living memory of
Vespasian? And how good are they? After all, this Josephus fellow was
doctored to produce two wholly spurious refereences to Jesus, you say. Maybe
he was also doctored by the Vespasian worshippers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 03:20:31 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Iasion" <quentinj@iinet.net.au> wrote
False.
You just don't get it.
Among the VAST body of historical evidence for Vespasian are a few
supernatural stories, which are rightly discounted.
Vespasian denial would be just as much a kook theory as Jesus Denial. But do
we have as many as fifty documents written within living memory of
Vespasian? And how good are they? After all, this Josephus fellow was
doctored to produce two wholly spurious refereences to Jesus, you say. Maybe
he was also doctored by the Vespasian worshippers?
what is the relavance of "as many as fifty documents written within
living memory of Vespasian"
These are only relavane if they mention Vespasian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 02:07:50 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:50:29 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Iasion" <quentinj@iinet.net.au> wrote
False.
You just don't get it.
Among the VAST body of historical evidence for Vespasian are a few
supernatural stories, which are rightly discounted.
Vespasian denial would be just as much a kook theory as Jesus Denial. But do
If there were such a thing as Jesus denial outside your deluded
imagination.
we have as many as fifty documents written within living memory of
Vespasian? And how good are they? After all, this Josephus fellow was
doctored to produce two wholly spurious refereences to Jesus, you say. Maybe
he was also doctored by the Vespasian worshippers?
Moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 09:18:55 AM |
|
|
In episode <dbq2m1$3no$3@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Malcolm
burst into the room and exclaimed:
"Iasion" <quentinj@iinet.net.au> wrote
Iasion's answer to Pastor's apologetics
=======================================
Pastor : "The documents of the New Testament are themselves historical
documents (and are, by the way, the best-attested documents in all of
antiquity.)"
A "historical document"?
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of
ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but
no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now,
CLAIMS it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal.
Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be presumed
to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking the
irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a
supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is just not true - no historian presumes an ancient book to
be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say
so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and analysed
carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is myths and
legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
You seem to think that arguing means refuting everything your opponent
says.
It certainly can.
However pastor's claim is self-evidently true.
Yeah, that's what people say when they know they have nothing to support
their position...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 12:57:14 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Iasion" <quentinj@iinet.net.au> wrote
Iasion's answer to Pastor's apologetics
=======================================
Pastor : "The documents of the New Testament are themselves historical
documents (and are, by the way, the best-attested documents in all of
antiquity.)"
A "historical document"?
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of
ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but
no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now,
CLAIMS it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal.
Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be
presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking
the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a
supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is just not true - no historian presumes an ancient book to
be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say
so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and
analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is
myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
You seem to think that arguing means refuting everything your opponent says.
It is a pretty good way of doing things. If you refute enverything the
opponnet says, then the opponent has no argument. Iasion showed why
there are no documents that can be regarded as eye witness accounts. Do
you accept this? If not, yuo could try telling us why yuo beleive tsome
of these documents to be eye witness accounts.
However pastor's claim is self-evidently true. The evidence is,
overwhelmingly, written evidence. And of course it is all evidence by people
who believed there was a historical individual called Jesus.
So? People believing it does not make it true. Unless you wnt to argue
that your belief in a historical Jesus makes it true. If so, why does
pthe belief of people who say there was no historical Jesus not make
their view true?
The documents are well attested because there are far more early manuscripts
of the New Testament in circulation than of any other comparbale literature.
So we can do things like look at textual variants, which is impossible to do
with most literature from the period.
Iasion showed this to be incorrect. Tehre may be "more" but "far more"
is a loaded term
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 01:52:46 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
It is a pretty good way of doing things. If you refute enverything the
opponnet says, then the opponent has no argument. Iasion showed why there
are no documents that can be regarded as eye witness accounts. Do you
accept this? If not, yuo could try telling us why yuo beleive tsome of
these documents to be eye witness accounts.
Actually, you either show that the opponent is completely incompetent, or
you show that you are a dishonest thinker who automatically rejects any
proposition that isn't totally in accordance with his therory.
The reader has to decide.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 03:21:39 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
It is a pretty good way of doing things. If you refute enverything the
opponnet says, then the opponent has no argument. Iasion showed why there
are no documents that can be regarded as eye witness accounts. Do you
accept this? If not, yuo could try telling us why yuo beleive tsome of
these documents to be eye witness accounts.
Actually, you either show that the opponent is completely incompetent, or
you show that you are a dishonest thinker who automatically rejects any
proposition that isn't totally in accordance with his therory.
The reader has to decide.
And the readers have decided that you have been shown to be both
incompetent and dishonest, with no argument to support a historical
Jesus, only a thoroughly discredited "50 documents"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 12:52:08 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Iasion" <quentinj@iinet.net.au> wrote
Iasion's answer to Pastor's apologetics
=======================================
Pastor : "The documents of the New Testament are themselves historical
documents (and are, by the way, the best-attested documents in all of
antiquity.)"
A "historical document"?
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of
ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but
no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now,
CLAIMS it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal.
Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be
presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking
the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a
supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is just not true - no historian presumes an ancient book to
be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say
so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and
analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is
myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
You seem to think that arguing means refuting everything your opponent says.
However pastor's claim is self-evidently true. The evidence is,
overwhelmingly, written evidence. And of course it is all evidence by people
who believed there was a historical individual called Jesus.
The documents are well attested because there are far more early manuscripts
of the New Testament in circulation than of any other comparbale literature.
So we can do things like look at textual variants, which is impossible to do
with most literature from the period.
I'm going to assume you read it, but perhaps you ought to try and
understand it before you reply
Of course an assertion by a historical figure doesn't mean that the
assertion must necesarily be true. For instance one might quite properly be
sceptical that Vespasian had the power to cure diseases. However what you
are arguing for is a type of radical scepticism - not only are the
implausible claims wrong, but the very existence of Vespasian must be open
to question. No historian approaches his sources with that type of
scepticism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 11:56:39 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Iasion" <quentinj@iinet.net.au> wrote
Iasion's answer to Pastor's apologetics
=======================================
Pastor : "The documents of the New Testament are themselves historical
documents (and are, by the way, the best-attested documents in all of
antiquity.)"
A "historical document"?
In other words - a very old document which appears to tell a history of
ancient times. There are many such documents, of varying quality - but
no such ancient book is true just because some believer, then or now,
CLAIMS it to be true.
All old writings must be evaluated by all the methods at our disposal.
Christians sometimes try to argue that ancient documents can be
presumed to be true, unless proven otherwise - sometimes even invoking
the irrelevant phrase "innocent until proven guilty" or even invoking a
supposed law of Aristotle.
Well, this is just not true - no historian presumes an ancient book to
be true, and certainly not religious works, and nor did Aristotle say
so. Rather all ancient writings are criticised and compared and
analysed carefully to see what can be considered reliable, and what is
myths and legends or lies or exaggeration or just plain error.
You seem to think that arguing means refuting everything your opponent says.
However pastor's claim is self-evidently true. The evidence is,
overwhelmingly, written evidence. And of course it is all evidence by people
who believed there was a historical individual called Jesus.
The documents are well attested because there are far more early manuscripts
of the New Testament in circulation than of any other comparbale literature.
So we can do things like look at textual variants, which is impossible to do
with most literature from the period.
Of course an assertion by a historical figure doesn't mean that the
assertion must necesarily be true. For instance one might quite properly be
sceptical that Vespasian had the power to cure diseases. However what you
are arguing for is a type of radical scepticism - not only are the
implausible claims wrong, but the very existence of Vespasian must be open
to question. No historian approaches his sources with that type of
scepticism.
You have time to waste with this savage
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 02:42:27 AM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
Iasion wrote:
Iasion's answer to Pastor's apologetics
You seem to think that arguing means refuting everything your
opponent says.
And, when everything your opponent says is demonstrated to be
absolutely without merit...well....
However pastor's claim is self-evidently true.
<sigh>
The evidence is, overwhelmingly, written evidence. And of course
it is all evidence by people who believed there was a historical
individual called Jesus.
And, here, you make it clear that, not only are you a blithering
idiot, you didn't even take the time to read what Iasion
wrote. For he cited lots of evidence, much of it significantly
better than your famous ``FIFTY DOCUMENTS,'' that there were
/plenty/ of people who believed the exact OPPOSITE of your
statement.
But you don't believe me? Fine. Tell me why ``John'' felt
compelled to write that second epistle of his. We'll start with
that.
The documents are well attested because there are far more
early manuscripts of the New Testament in circulation than of
any other comparbale literature.
This, too, Iasion addressed. Not only is it meaningless, it's a
lie.
So we can do things like look at textual variants, which is
impossible to do with most literature from the period.
Likewise, a lie.
Of course an assertion by a historical figure doesn't mean that
the assertion must necesarily be true. For instance one might
quite properly be sceptical that Vespasian had the power to
cure diseases. However what you are arguing for is a type of
radical scepticism - not only are the implausible claims
wrong, but the very existence of Vespasian must be open to
question. No historian approaches his sources with that type of
scepticism.
Lie.
Why are you so terrified of even /reading/ what Iasion wrote? Is
your faith so weak that you fear it's incapable of withstanding
serious scrutiny?
If so...aren't you better off without it?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
22 Jul 2005 06:39:16 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
You seem to think that arguing means refuting everything your opponent says.
However pastor's claim is self-evidently true. The evidence is,
overwhelmingly, written evidence. And of course it is all evidence by people
who believed there was a historical individual called Jesus.
The documents are well attested because there are far more early manuscripts
of the New Testament in circulation than of any other comparbale literature.
So we can do things like look at textual variants, which is impossible to do
with most literature from the period.
I had a revelation about Malcolm
He views this argument as two dies "There was a proveable historical
Jesus" vs "There is proveably no historical Jesus", so when he presents
his evidence, he expects the other side to come up with a list showing
that there was no historical Jesus. Merely showing his list is no
evidence for his argument is not good enough for him, the truth of his
arguments don't matter as they are faith based, not fact based.
The simple thing to do would be to copy his 50 documents and repost it
as "50 documents proving there was no historical Jesus"
by his own rules outlined above, it would be wrong of him to then
examine thse documents and see if they genuinly advocated there being no
historical Jesus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
23 Jul 2005 01:31:14 AM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
Merely showing his list is no evidence for his argument is not good
enough for him, the truth of his arguments don't matter as they are faith
based, not fact based.
Evidence isn't proof. How often do I need to say that.
The fact that the jury didn't find Michael Jackson guilty means they thought
that there was no proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was gulity as
charged. It doesn't mean that they believe the prosecution presented no
evidence.
In other words, Jackson's lawyers had a better explanation for the evidence.
Similarly, when it is alleged "there is no evidence for a historical Jesus"
the natural answer is to say "fifty documents". If the person doesn't know
what fifty documents I am talking about, what am I to conclude.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
23 Jul 2005 12:32:43 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
Merely showing his list is no evidence for his argument is not good
enough for him, the truth of his arguments don't matter as they are
faith based, not fact based.
Evidence isn't proof. How often do I need to say that.
The fact that the jury didn't find Michael Jackson guilty means they
thought that there was no proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was
gulity as charged. It doesn't mean that they believe the prosecution
presented no evidence.
In other words, Jackson's lawyers had a better explanation for the
evidence.
Similarly, when it is alleged "there is no evidence for a historical
Jesus" the natural answer is to say "fifty documents". If the person
doesn't know what fifty documents I am talking about, what am I to
conclude.
That you're a Morman? "Fifty selected documents of Joseph Smith are
presented here as a readable, chronological overview of the early days of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. "
That you admit nothing the alleged Jesus did was original, that, if he
existed he just said what a lot of people believed at the time? "Compiled
by scholars Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise, these *fifty documents* cast a
startling light on events in Palestine at the dawn of Christianity. They
portray not a family of peaceful Essenes but a fiercely militant religious
sect whose members awaited an apocalyptic Day of Vengeance. The authors
speak of a messiah and the resurrection of the dead. They allude not only to
doctrines we now recognize as Christian but also to the precursors of Islam
and Jewish Kabbalism. Providing precise transliterations into modern Hebrew
characters and English translations, and accompanied by detailed
commentaries, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered represents a quantum leap in
our knowledge of 1the ancient origins of modern faith."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
23 Jul 2005 02:20:47 PM |
|
|
Poggybacking as I had enough of trying to be reasonable with someone as
fundamentally dishonest as Malcolm
Mike Painter wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
Merely showing his list is no evidence for his argument is not good
enough for him, the truth of his arguments don't matter as they are
faith based, not fact based.
Evidence isn't proof. How often do I need to say that.
You don't, everyone knows it
The fact that the jury didn't find Michael Jackson guilty means they
thought that there was no proof, beyond reasonable doubt, that he was
gulity as charged. It doesn't mean that they believe the prosecution
presented no evidence.
Did you manage to conclude this from th eJuror who said "Well, the
eivdence just wasn't strong enough for us to say 'There was no
reasonable doubt'?" Well, done if so, you did well there, if only you
could use the same level of jusgement and analysis where Jesus is
concerned, we might get somewhere
In other words, Jackson's lawyers had a better explanation for the
evidence.
Ah, you let yourself down there. Jackson's lawyers had a "reasonable"
explanation for the evidence, it didn't have to be better
Similarly, when it is alleged "there is no evidence for a historical
Jesus" the natural answer is to say "fifty documents". If the person
doesn't know what fifty documents I am talking about, what am I to
conclude.
And similarly, when it is alledged there is no evidence for a mythical
Jesus, the natural answer is to say "fifty documents". If the person
doesn't know what fifty documents I am talking about, what am I to
conclude?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
23 Jul 2005 05:19:50 PM |
|
|
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
And similarly, when it is alledged there is no evidence for a mythical
Jesus, the natural answer is to say "fifty documents". If the person
doesn't know what fifty documents I am talking about, what am I to
conclude?
I don't claim to be a specialist, or to have any special knowledge other
than the basics and common sense.
The claim for a mythical Jesus isn't an established scholarly theory. The
opinion that there was a historical Jesus is. It is therefore much harder to
obtain information about the first than the second.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
25 Jul 2005 07:47:19 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:dbufq5$pk4$3@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
And similarly, when it is alledged there is no evidence for a
mythical Jesus, the natural answer is to say "fifty documents". If
the person doesn't know what fifty documents I am talking about, what
am I to conclude?
I don't claim to be a specialist, or to have any special knowledge
other than the basics and common sense.
The claim for a mythical Jesus isn't an established scholarly theory.
The opinion that there was a historical Jesus is. It is therefore much
harder to obtain information about the first than the second.
Yet Iasion posted a detailed monograph showing why. Did you actually read
his post? Did you learn anything? Your glib response indicate you were
just standing with your hands covering your ears spouting "neener neener
neener, I can't hear you".
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Iasion's answer to Pastor Dave |
23 Jul 2005 06:07:49 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Saturday 23 July 2005 6:19 pm
regniztar@btinternet.com wrote:
"Ash" <ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
And similarly, when it is alledged there is no evidence for a mythical
Jesus, the natural answer is to say "fifty documents". If the person
doesn't know what fifty documents I am talking about, what am I to
conclude?
I don't claim to be a specialist, or to have any special knowledge other
than the basics and common sense.
The claim for a mythical Jesus isn't an established scholarly theory. The
opinion that there was a historical Jesus is. It is therefore much h | | | | | | | |
