The Existence of Jesus Christ

Greetings,There are several passages in the Talmud said to possibly refer to Jesus - most of it seems to be from the later layer.Zindler does an exhaustive treatment in his recent
"The Jesus the Jews Never Knew"This page covers the main passages -
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.htmlPeter Kirby gives some details also:
TalmudNone of it seems convincing as evidence for Jesus -
* there seem to be several confused traditions
* dates and names don't match wellIt seems to be late reaction to Gospel stories, not history.Mead wrote "Did Jesus live 100BC" which deals with some of this - it is online at Peter Kirby's -
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.christianorigins.com/mead/Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

because when he sees the evidence is ready to dismiss it no matter what.

---

No.
I have examined the evidence closely and given specific reasons why it is suspect.

quote:

---

For example, the claim there are no writings from the apostles who met Jesus is facetiously based on agressive disbelief.

---

Most modern scholars agree, your insults not-withstanding.Can you produce any evidence of a document written by sonmeone who met Jesus?

quote:

---

Three books written by the hand of eyewitnesses--based on all objective criteria for research in ancient writings--and another by one who took lots of first-person testimony, which books are corroborated by other contemporary references to those times that followed almost immediately, relatve to historical time lines.

---

False.
The Gospels were originally anonymous, we have no idea who really wrote them.G.Mark was first - it was written probably in Rome by someone who had never even been to Palestine.G.Luke and G.Matthew copied G.Mark wholesale - hardly the act of an eye-witness.G.John tells a completely different story - the most full of spiritual waffle, the least historical and latest of all - not by an eye-witness.There are NO contemporary references.Only later legends.

quote:

---

The evidence against these four books is given by people who approach the subject with agressive disbelief, many times even cloaked in the color of deceipt by virtue of a *nominal* belief in deities or persons vaguely resembling those referred to in said Scriptures. But not even the professional disbelievers in the "Jesus Seminar" pretend that he didn't exist.

---

You repeat this mantra "agressive bisbelief" as if it proves something,
yet
all you offer is agressive faith in return.

quote:

---

HOMER'S "ILIAD": The earliest copies that we have in known existance today of Homer's "Iliad", dating to the thirteenth century. Iasion has possibly read the English translation of this book, and undoubtedly did not question his teacher as to whether this was an invention of some ninth-century fiction writer.

​

JULIUS CAESAR, "GALLIC WARS": The earliest copy of "Gallic Wars", written by Julius Caesar, dates to one thousand years later than the original. The only corroborating historical reference to his authorship that I was only able to find was one, Suetonius.

---

So what?What ON EARTH do you think accuracy of copies has ANYTHING to do with truth of contents?We have the original manuscript of Lord of The Rings - does that make it true?We have manuscripts of the Book of Mormon from very early after its writing - does that make it true?What about the legends of Osiris inscribed in stone in the pyramids - the ORIGINAL VERSION from thousands of years ago - according to your theory, that makes it completely true.What nonsense!The accuracy or dating of copies of STORIES has NOTHING to do with the truth of the STORIES.Can YOU explain why you think it does?

quote:

---

Until recently, the earliest known NT document is a fragment from the book of John, found in Egypt 1920, written on both sides, and dated to between AD 125 and AD 150, which would be 35 to 60 or 90 years after the original.

---

Dated by SOME.
Originally it was dated late 2nd or so.
More recent experts have agreed with this date.P52 is a darling of the faithful Christians - every time they tell the story it gets dated earlier.P52 may have been a free floating pericope later added to the Gospel.
P52 may have been a very early copy of the Gospel..
P52 may have been from another book entirely.It proves very little.

quote:

---

Now come the Lukan papyrus, in a Paris library now, a fragment predating that one by 20-30 years, and now a fragment from the book of Mark found among the *Qumram scrolls* (7Q5), thus written sometime before 68 AD.

---

No-one believes this nonsense except the gullible and the faithful.
Scholars have completely demolished the crackpot claims of Thiede.
7Q5 has NOT been given a P number - showing it is NOT considered a NT papyrus.

quote:

---

..This Suetonius, by the way, also refers to Nero's 64 AD persecution of Christians, as in, "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." (__Someone had said that Tacitus was the only such reference__)

---

There is no evidence to support Suetonius' rumour.

quote:

---

Also, Suetonius makes reference to Claudius expelling the Jews out of Rome after a time of some agitation, an event also mentioned in Acts.

---

He refers to CHRESTUS - a real Greek name, causing disturbance in Rome in the 40s.
How can anyone think this has anything to do with Jesus?

quote:

---

References to the four gospels abound also in the writings of the early church fathers from the second, third and fourth century, providing a massively better corroboration of the original authenticity of the actual NT manuscripts and codexes than for any other as to point to original authorship.

---

Yes,
the legends and myths grew masively over the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries - like I said.
But,
in the 1st century - NOTHING.

quote:

---

These references include letters to the Roman rulers in letters pleading with them to check the official records from Palestine for corroboration.

---

Hmm ..
Are you referring to the KNOWN FORGERIES in the Archko Volume?

quote:

---

Known non-Biblical references date Christianity's spread to Nineveh to before the end of the first century, and the earliest known translation papyrus was found there recently, predating other NT copies.

---

So what?
We know Christianity existed in 1st century in various places.What do you think this has to do with evidnce for JESUS?

quote:

---

To question them is to question the authorship of Julius' "Gallic Wars", and of "Iliad", and countless other ancient writings.

---

Rubbish.
We have vast mountains of evidence for Caesar, much of it contemporary.WE have no contemporary evidnce for Jesus - just some later legends.

quote:

---

There are 643 known manuscript copies of the Iliad. There are ten ancient copies of Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars". The NT has over 5,640 Greek manusrcipts of substantial parts or of all of the NT. There are ten thousand manuscripts of the Vulgate.

---

Good god, man!
Why do you keep saying this?Why do you think it has ANYTHING to do with the truth of the contents?We have 400,000 copies of writings of the 1st millenium chinese monk Shenzou (I think that's his name).
Thats VASTLY more than your 5,640.
So,
will you be converting to Shenzouism?Think about what you are saying codetrainer!
This argument is worthless

quote:

---

The records of the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 with Nero, and Peter in 65 AD, and the other apostles, are only so easily dismissed if one has a very strong disbelief bias,

---

Rubbish.
James may have existed.
Paul clearly existed.
Peter may have existed.
I never said otherwise.Do you actually READ what people write?

quote:

---

for there is no other balanced way available to dispute them that does not also invalidate every other ancient record. For (1) there are manuscripts that date closer to the original dates than copies of other ancient documents *by centuries*, (2) these are more numerous and self-corroborating than any other ancient document copy set, and (3) there is more reference and corroboration to them from external documents than for any other, and (4) there are numerous historical references to Jesus Christ that date to his time, and this even allowing the exclusion of the entire New Testament and the testimony of the apostles, and their next-generation followers into the 2nd century AD, confirmed in the strongest possible terms, with their own lives, and that beginning under Nero's reign.

---

WE still have the ORIGINALS from Charles Manson - does that him correct?We still have the originals from the Heaven's Gate cult - does that them correct?When are you going to wake up codetrainer?The NUMBER of copies,
the accuracy of copies,
the dating of documents,
has NOTHING to do with the truth of the contents.Only a complete newbie apologists repeats this long disproven canard.It's not the 1800s anymore, get with the program.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

That's why I had already said that three of them were written by eyewitnesses, and another by one who took testimony from eyewitnesses.

---

No they weren't
Mark was not an eye-witness, even according to your own stories.
According to modern scholars, none of them were.

quote:

---

This latter assertion is indeed in the introduction to the book, where the authorship is indeed directly indicated.

---

No it isn't.
There is no author's name in the text, it's a later addition.

quote:

---

Luke I have said was not written by an eyewitness, but was written based on eyewitness testimony, as indicated in the text itself.

---

No he doesn't.1:1 Since many have undertaken to set in order a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 1:2 even as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, This is the only mention of "eye-witnesses" -
A claim that many others have written narratives based on what the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered to them.The author does NOT directly connect his writing with any such eye-witnesses.The author does NOT claim to have known any eye-witnesses.What he claims is -
* OTHERS wrote stories derived from "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word"
* HE traced the course of all things accurately from the firstBut if you actually READ the text, you see he does NOT specifically make ANY connection between his work and the eye-witnesses, just a vague implication he refered to these other works that were based on those alleged "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word"And what exactly does it mean to be an "eye-witness and minister to the word" ?
It could simply mean they had Jesus visions like Paul did.So,
the frequent claim of apologists that Luke based his work on eye-witnesses is FALSE.

​

What we actually READ in his preamble is :
* others based some stories on "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word"
* he wrote a version "accurately from the first"

quote:

---

(1) For going back to the originals, you won't find another document from ancient times where the earliest extant copy is as close to the original dating,
(2) you won't find nearly as many corroborating manuscripts and codexes, going back as far and as early,

---

False.
You keep saying this.
Even though I pointed out how silly it is.What do you think the dating or accuracy or number of manuscripts has to do with the truth of the story it contains?Consider some examples -
* 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?
* the legend of Osiris carved in Egyptian stone tombs - the exact unchanged original - does that make it exacttly true history?

quote:

---

(3) where there is as much corroboration from indirect evidence from those who knew the apostles personally, such as Polycarp, who himself showed his confidence in the truth by witnessing with his own life,

---

False.
There is no evidence that Polycarp met any apostles, just later legends.
Many people die for their beliefs - e.g. the Heaven's Gate cult - do you therefore believe it's right to castrate and kill yourself to catch a ride on that spaceship hiding behind Hale Bopp?

quote:

---

(4) other confident early fathers' references to the Roman records themselves,

---

False.
There are no Roman records of Jesus.
Just later records of Christians and their beliefs about Jesus.

quote:

---

(5) from antagonists themselves nearly contemporary, like this exchange between Trajan the Emperor and Pliny the Younger,

---

A good example of what I mean by later records of beliefs about Jesus -About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny refered to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth, just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.

quote:

---

(6) Then you have the set of manuscripts that are consistent in content that also goes back as far as you can get to the original, and is also corroborated by the agreement among them. Besides this, you have the writings of the earliest church fathers from the second century, in spite of being hindered by waves of Roman persecutions, quoting profusely from the NT and the gospels.

---

False.
There are no originals.
And every single NT manuscript is VARIANT from every other (not counting tiny scraps.)Anyway - what does that have to do with the TRUTH of the CONTENTS ?Why do you keep saying this?We have the ORIGINAL manuscript if the Lord of the Rings - does that make it true?

quote:

---

(7) the early second century, barely a scant two generations removed from the dates in question, you have references to those four gospels as inspired.

---

So?
What does professions of faithful belief prove?

quote:

---

It is even said that almost all the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the early writings of these church fathers.

---

Yes, it is SAID.
Do you know anyone who has checked?
I do.
Guess what?
It's not true at all.
Just another empty claim of apologists - it might fool the believers who never bother to check.

quote:

---

There have been counted 36,289 distinct New Testament references from the writings of the earliest church fathers alone, from the first and second centuries, from disparate places and disparate times but overwhelmingly consistent with the separate line of actual copies of the New Testament books.

---

So?IasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 06-19-2005 05:48 AM

Greetings Jabez1000,

quote:

---

Besides the problem of trying to connect Luke, Paul and the disciples with Krishna or Mithrias

---

Pardon?
WHo tried to do that ?

quote:

---

If a handful, or hundreds, of people who were the first Christians made up this allegedly non-existent Jesus their "fable" could have and would have been squashed by the Jews of that day.

---

Why?
The Jesus of Paul was a spiritual being.
Paul says nothing to argue with.The Gospel stories did not arise till a century or soo after the alleged events.No Christian shows any knowledge of the Gospels until early-mid 2nd century.
Aristides specifically calls the Gospels new and un-named in his time (mid 2nd century.)Between the arrival of the Gospels and the period they were set in lies :
* two wars with the Romans
* the destruction of the Temple
* the razing of Jerusalem
* the killing and dispersal of Judea
* several generations.So,
when the Gospels arose in early-mid 2nd century in Rome,
there were no "Jews of that day" to check with.Suppose I wrote a story set in WW1 ?
If it was not debunked, would that make it true?Consider this novel :[Robinson, Derek. Hornet's Sting. 1999. 405 p.
A humorous novel set around a British air squadron operating over Europe in 1917 tells the uproarious tale of Captain Woolley's air war--a booze-fueled campaign that could result in one hundred percent casualties. (MN only)]It has not been debunked by the people of the day -
do you think that makes it true?And since when is LITERATURE debunked?You simply do NOT grasp the argument.Was Lord of the Rings debunked?
Do you think it is true?Was Gone With The Wind debunked?
Do you think it is true?Was James Bond debunked?
Do you think it is true?Anyway,
once the Gospels did come to light,
they WERE attacked as FICTION based on MYTHS.And,
Jews later made up all sorts of horrible stories about Jesus.

quote:

---

Those who wrote the New Testament said that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

---

The NT was written based on the stories from the OT.
Thats like saying Harry Potter book 3 fulfilled the prophecies in Harry Potter book 1.

quote:

---

The idea of a mythical figure fulfilling these prophecies would have outraged the Jews of the first through fourth centuries and they would have ABSOLUTELY made it known that there was no person named Yeshua of Nazareth who was crucified and rose from the dead.

---

The Jews only found out about the Gospel stories long long after the events.
When they DID find out, they made all sorts of critical comments and claims and stories about him.
It just never occured to him that he never existed.

quote:

---

But what did the Jews do? About 200 B.C. they changed Psalm 22:16 to "Like a Lion are my hands and feet" when they created the Masoretic text. They understood the implications of this verse and wouldn't accept that Jesus is the Messiah. The LXX (or septuagint) was written about 200 B.C., four hundred years earlier than the MT, and in the LXX it says "they have pierced my hands and feet." In the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written centuries before the Masoretic text, it says "They have pierced my hands and my feet."

---

Rubbish.
What is your evidence that Jews changed this in reponse to Christian beliefs?

quote:

---

Also, if Luke, Paul and the disciples learned of Mithras from Roman Soldiers and based this alleged Jesus myth on Mithras

---

This is not what the Christ Myth argues.
Just the usual Christian mis-understanding of it.

quote:

---

Roman Soldiers could have easily made it known that this was a copycat and they had not crucified and guarded the tomb of any Yeshua of Nazareth.

---

So, in other words -
If the story was true, then the story is true!The soldiers are merely part of the STORY!Consider -
Gandalf could have pointed out that Sauron was fictional - Gandlaf didn't do that, therefore Sauron is TRUE!

quote:

---

Funny....after persecuting and killing the early Christians, Christianity eventually became the official religion of the Roman empire. Hmmmmmm.

---

So?
Islam was the official religion of earlier empires - does that make it true to you?
Hinduism was the offial religion of the Mogul empire - does that make it true to you?

quote:

---

Then there's the question of motive. Were there early Christians that were arrested, flogged and killed for something that they knew was a lie?

---

Please pay attention.
No-one said they knew it was a lie.
It's very sad that apologists still rarely even GRASP the argument for a mythical Jesus.Christians really BELIEVED these stories - that does NOT make them TRUE.
The Heaven's Gate cult really BELIEVED their stories - that does NOT make them TRUE.
Muslims really BELIEVE their stories - that does NOT make them TRUE.Suicide bombers die for their beliefs EVERY DAY now - that does NOT make them TRUE.
The Heaven's Gate cult died for their beliefs - that does NOT make them TRUE.Do you get it yet?People BELIEVE all sorts of false things.
People DIE for the belief in all sorts of false things.So what?

quote:

---

If so it begs the question why? Motive, motive, motive

---

Why did Apuleis write The Golden Ass?
Why was the Gita written?
Why was the Koran written?
Why did Tolkein write LOTR?
Why did Margaret Mitchell write Gone With the Wind?You seem to be saying that if someone bothered to write a story, it must be TRUE - why do you think that?Iasion

Greetings Jabez1000,

quote:

---

Unless their are records that show the specific date it can't be determined exactly when the practice of putting people "out of the synagogue" began.

---

I never claimed an exact date.
Scholars don't claim an exact date - as you noted, its estimated to be 85-95 or so.But what exactly is your point?
Are you claiming that the Christians WERE ejected from the Temple in the 30s?
Based on what?Can you explain what YOU think this has to do with showing the Gospel was by John?

quote:

---

I've read that Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp who knew John from Ephesus and may have been his disciple.

---

Read where?
That he MAY have?Produce the evidence,
Show why YOU think this proves something about the authorship of G.John.

quote:

---

About 180 AD Irenaeus wrote "The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit." (Against Heresies 3.11.8)

---

Yes he did.
Can you explain why YOU think this fable proves anything about the authorship of G.John?

quote:

---

Greek scholar Daniel Wallace gives a short but good examination of the authorship of John's Gospel at Page not found | Bible.org

---

Peter Kirby's site shows why this Gospel was not written by a disciple.
Gospel of John

quote:

---

In John chapter 5 there's a story of an invalid who was healed by a pool called Bethesda. In 1886 archaelogists excavated the ruins of the pool. It would have been destroyed in 70 AD but John wrote of it in the present tense. Speaking of John 5:2 Wallace states (a) "the verb is (ejstin) cannot be a historical present, and (b) the pool was destroyed in 70 CE. By far the most plausible conclusion is that this gospel was written before 70 CE." On the gospel itself he says "The author uses the historical present more than any other gospel writer (161 times) and in such a way as to indicate vividness of portrayal. One should note the especially heavy use in chapter 4 and the passion narrative. This suggests the vivid recollections of an eyewitness."

---

Gone with the Wind includes historical places and things that are now destroyed.
Therefore according to your argument, Gone with the Wind is a true story.James Bond novels are written in the 1st person.
Therefore according to your argument, James Bond is a real.This is a silly argument - did you think about it at all?

quote:

---

Warren Berkley makes some good points about John's knowledge of the area of which he wrote:

---

What on earth do you think this has to do with proving it was written by apostle John?
Everyone who lived in the region would know of the area!
5 Romans legions were in the region - 1000s of people knew the sights.Do you REALLY think this proves ANYTHING?
Seriously?If so, can you explain WHY you think this proves John wrote the Gospel?I wrote:
"The Gospel stories did not arise till a century or so after the alleged events"You conspicously FAILED to provide any reply or rebuttal to this.Can you show a clear quote from a named Gospel within a century of the alleged vents?Can you explain why you think your vague claims about G.John have anything to do with the lateness of the Gospels entering the Christian record?Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

The details are realistic, not mythic (ignoring the supernatural parts).

---

So,
if you IGNORE the mythic parts,
the non-mythic parts that remain
show it was all non-mythical.Are you serious?How about this theory instead :
if you IGNORE the non-mythic parts,
the mythic parts that remain,
show it was all mythical.

quote:

---

All the references to particular places and times is very unlike mythic writings.

---

Really ?
Who said ?
What is the evidence ?Please show how they are unlike.What is the difference between
the real places and times in the Gospels and the
the real places and times in the Illiad?What is the difference between
the real places and times in the Gospels and the
the real places and times in the Golden Ass of Apuleis?Obviously,
your claim is false.Many fictional writings have real places and times -
* Gone With the Wind
* Sherlock Holmes
* James BondAccording to YOUR theory, these are all TRUE STORIES.

quote:

---

There are also comments, that if it were all fraudulent, should have been omitted by those who came later, such as the comment by Jesus that he would return within the lifetime of those he was talking to.

---

Fraud?I said nothing about fraud.
Once again apologists just CANNOT seem to GRASP the issue.Is Gone With the Wind true?
If not, then you believe its a fraud.Is Sherlock Holmes true?
If not, then you believe its a fraud.Is James Bond true?
If not, then you believe its a fraud.Do you really believe there are only 2 types of documents in the world?
true history
or
fraud?Is THAT what you believe?No,
it's NOT a fraud - there was no clear intent to deceive.It's LITERATURE, religious literature meant to inspire and inform.There is no evidence it was ever meant as HISTORY.

quote:

---

I find it very difficult to believe that someone corresponding to Jesus in some sense never existed

---

This is the true part of your post - you BELIEVE in Jesus - evidence comes 2nd.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

I don't "believe" in Jesus in a religious sense, but I do in a historical sense.

---

But yet you cannot provide any historical evidence for a historical Jesus?

quote:

---

It does not have the flavor of a novel.

---

I did not call it a novel.
I called it spiritual literature - a better term is "midrash" in this case, as pointed out by lfen.Can you please tell us exactly what the flavour of a novel is?
Can you please tell us exactly what the flavour of the Gospels is?Can you then please show the difference between these 2 flavours?

quote:

---

I've read many novels. That's my expertise.

---

Reading many novels makes you an expert at analysing ancient documents?What does your expertise say about The Illiad?
What does your expertise say about The Golden Ass of Apuleis?
What does your expertise say about The Satyricon of Petronius?
What does your expertise say about the Homeric poems of Quintus?
What does your expertise say about Plutarch's Isis and Osiris?
What does your expertise say about Appian?
What does your expertise say about Caesar's Commentaries?Iasion

Greetings,No.I merely showed that YOUR argument,
when applied to documents which were obviously NOT true,
(e.g. ancient myths, or even modern historical novels)
claims these documents were true !This showed your argument is false.Of course, you ignore this, same as you ignore all my arguments.I did describe the Gospels as LITERATURE, because I want to capture the idea that it is a finely crafted piece of creative writing which is deeply rooted in the culture and stories of the milieu.It's not really a novel - although it shares some sinmilarities with a novel. Indeed one the very earliest novels was written just before the Gospels, and it climaxes with an EMPTY TOMB scene - Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe. Just like the G.Mark ended with an empty tomb climax (before the ending was added.)It's not exactly fiction - although the author does clearly craft much of it - like Isis and Osiris is crafted, like Shakespeare is crafted, like the Gita is crafted, like Mallory's King Arthur was crafted.G.Mark is a work of art, crafted as midrash from the OT, and also echoing the popular son-of-god legends.It was one of the greatest acts of creative genius of all time.Let me predict...You will never deal with the many points I have adduced here.
Instead you will go on and on picking nits
about whether its a novel, or whether its a fraud.As if you have caught me out in some error.Please show me I'm wrong in this :-)
Lets get back to the main issues.My arguments :
* the Gospels and their stories were un-known, even to Christians, until a CENTURY or so after the alleged events.
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.
* the Gospel of Mark was not written by a local, but probably in Rome - by a person un-known
* G.Luke and G.Matthew were copied largely from G.Mark, by persons unknown
* G.John is so late and variant that it cannot be history either, also not by an eye-witness.
* None of the NT documents were written by anyone who met a physical historical Jesus of Nazareth.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

It makes more sense to think that than to think that this story of the historical Jesus is totally fictitious

---

Once again,
you completety fail to understand the argument.Please take the time to READ and GRASP the issues.No-one said "totally fictitious".The Jesus character was mined from the OT.Early christians believed the story of Jesus had been newly revealed and could be seen in re-interpretations of the OT (this process is called midrash.)Paul described the Jesus story "according to the scriptures"This is like describing the Arthur story as "according to the Mallory"Mark crafted a new Jesus story based on the warp of Paul's writing, and the weft of the OT stories such as Elijah.No-one claimed it was a "fraud".Sadly, you keep saying "it's not a fraud",
as if my argument claims it IS a fraud.No matter how many times I point this out,
I don't think robin will ever grasp the issue.

quote:

---

and that non-Biblical references are all doctored up.

---

No-one claimed this.
You just made it up.Robin,
you have shown you don't understand these issues and arguments at all.
May I politely suggest you actually study the issues so you can follow the arguments properly?Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

you're analogies are ludicrous; you're not comparing apples and oranges; more like apples and daisies.

---

It wasn't an analogy.I showed that your argument,
when applied to obviously not true documents,
supposedly "proved" them true!This shows your argument is false.If you like, I will chose more analogous documents then :
* the Golden Ass of Apuleis - written in the same period as the Gospels, with historical figures as well as magical happenings - just like the Gospels.
* Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe - written just before the Gospels, with historical figures as well as magical happenings - just like the Gospels - even climaxing with a EMPTY TOMB scene!
* the Illiad - many historical places etc - as well as magic.
* Plutarch's Isis and Osiris - written in the same period as the Gospels, with historical figures as well as magical happenings - just like the Gospels.So,
do you believe these documents are all true?According to the argument YOU adduced they are.Do you stand by that argument?

quote:

---

Prove it! You claim that it's "rubbish" that the Jews who wrote the MT changed Psalm 22:16 to "like a lion" rather than pierced.

---

What ?YOU made the claim,
I asked YOU to prove it.You FAILED to provide any evidence at all !Then you have the gall to ask me to prove a negative!This is nonsense.
It's YOUR CLAIM, then YOU prove it.My prediction -
You will never provide any evidence for this claim.

quote:

---

It could also be said that the purpose of Irenaeus was to defend the gospels.

---

Yup.
One and a half CENTURIES after the alleged events,
Irenaeus is the FIRST to name the four Gospels.He was the one who said there MUST BE FOUR because there are four winds and four cherubs etc. - and you think this is historical proof? Arguments about four winds and four cherubs? What a laugh.

quote:

---

Why do you think that Against Heresies was a fable? Irenaeus knew Polycarp and there is some debate of whether or not Polycarp was a disciple of John's but Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp knew John. Also, I've read that Ireneaus referred to John as "the beloved disciple" once or twice but wasn't able to find references.

---

Ha Ha.
"Some debate"
"wasn't able to find to references".In other words you have no evidence at all.

quote:

---

It proves that the author was not (as some people claim) a Greek

---

No it doesn't.
Why do YOU think it does?
Every body in the region would know the topography, whether they be Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians or pagans or whetever.Can you explain why YOU think only the apostle John would know the region?Can you explain why all the OTHER people living there would NOT know the region?Did you even think for a MOMENT about this argument?

quote:

---

but rather that he was well aware of the Judean topography and, more than that, he wrote of things that would have been in ruins when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.

---

What a laugh !You think that NO-ONE after the year 70 would know about Jerusalem or Temple etc.?
Because it had been destroyed in 70 CE?
Therefore no-one could POSSIBLY knw anything about Jerusalem after 70CE?Are you serious?You REALLY BELIEVE that NO-ONE after the year 70 could have known anything about Jerusalem or the Temple?Wow.

quote:

---

Those who believe that this wasn't written until the second century are wrong. I have provided strong evidence that it was written before 70 A.D.

---

No you didn't.You showed that the author of G.John knew a few things about the region. Do you REALLY BELIEVE this proves anything about John?None of your evidence mentioned ANYTHING specific about the AUTHOR AT ALL !Instead you made some vague claims that the author knew something about the region, as if it proved something.Such are the empty claims of apologists.Iasion

Greetings,

quote:

---

But somewhere along the line, somebody had to write a "novel" by Doherty's reasoning.

---

False.
Doherty never calls it a "novel".
But he does uses words like "story" and "create".It seems that robin only knows of two types of writings in the world:* true history
* novels (which are "fraud")

quote:

---

So did Mark believe the story he wrote? Apparently not, since he made it up. So it's an intentional fraud?

---

No-one said "fraud" except you.You don't seem capable of grasping the argument, robin.Was Homer a fraud?
Was Shakespeare a fraud?
Was Apuleis a fraud?
Was Mallory a fraud?My prediction - you will never deal with the issues I raised.Instead you will pick nits, on and on, about it being a "fraud" and/or a "novel".IasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 07-01-2005 08:51 PM

Gday, Only if you ASSUME the resurrection actually happened. WOULD have been?
Only if you assume it happened in the first place. The T.F. is a Christian forgery.There were NO eye-witnesses to Jesus.
We do not have even ONE authentic claim to have met a historical Jesus (just the late forgery 2 Peter.)KapyongEdited by Kapyong, : No reason given.

Gday, May have?
Do you have ANY evidence that Paul met Jesus?
According to your own Christian tradition he did NOT.Paul says he got his Gospel from NO MAN,
that he did NOT LEARN it,
that he got it from revelation and scripture.Paul also says he is just as much an apostle as they are - NO mention of them having met Jesus.Kapyong

Gday, 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 Ass of Apuleius - this "historical document" tells the story of how Apuleius turned into an Ass 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.htmlBoth 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.Kapyong

Gday, Every single document ever written by anyone, anywhere was written "after the fact". SO what?The issue here is how LONG (and by who.) It HAS been used as evidence, and it has been rejected for reasons well-covered in this thread. Fair enough.
Please present your argument and reasons and evidence then.KapEdited by Kapyong, : No reason given.