Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 136 of 306 (494890)
01-19-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by dwise1
01-19-2009 3:56 PM


Short OT comment:
DAMN, that Paine could write! Now I'll have to read Age of Reason instead of the Cliff's Notes....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2009 3:56 PM dwise1 has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 137 of 306 (494899)
01-19-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by dwise1
01-19-2009 3:56 PM


Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
dwise1 writes:
Myself writes:
Besides even if Julius Caesar and Aristotle were fictional what difference would it make on modern society? None. What if Jesus was fictional? You religion would collapse.
Not quite, I'm afraid...
Regarding the effects on the history and development of western civilization, it doesn't matter whether the Christ had ever existed or not, nor whether any actual historical Jesus character had ever existed or not, nor whether anything at all about Christianity is true or not. All that mattered was that the people believed that it was true and that the Christ had actually existed.
Similarly, even if Jesus were found to be fictional, that would not cause the collapse of the Christian religion. That is, as long as the believers do not realize that he's fictional. Once believers realize that he's fictional, then, yes, the religion will collapse, but not before. Which is why they must fight against that realization. Just at they feel they must fight against evolution, because they believe (quite falsely, as we know) that if evolution is true then their god doesn't exist.
Sorry, I should have clarified. This is what I meant. If Jesus was proven to be merely a fictional character to believers and accepted by them than Christianity most certainly would collapse. However, I have my doubts that most believers would ever accept this even in the face of evidence proving the fabrication of this character.
I am not saying we have incontrovertible evidence yet (or well ever) proving that Jesus was soley a fictional character however that was not the point of my rebuttals with Buzzsaw. It was merely to point out that the burden of proof for his existence lies with the Christians and the existence of Jesus Christ has yet to be sufficiently substantiated by any contemporary sources. In addition, it does not matter the existence of other historical figures such as Aristotle, Caesar, etc when compared to the impact that the existence of Jesus Christ being God would have on human kind i.e. the eternal destiny of humanity (eternal life in heaven or eternal torment in hell).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2009 3:56 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Peg, posted 01-24-2009 5:46 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 138 of 306 (494901)
01-19-2009 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Buzsaw
01-19-2009 10:30 AM


Re: Who burned what
Hi Nighttrain. This does not pertain to the topic in that the persecution and manuscript burning applicable to the times of Jesus was cited only to explain why the earliest NT manuscripts were not abundant relative to the times of Jesus and shortly after his death
Ah, Buz, I bet you played a lot of basketball in your time, as you are a master of the dodge.:-)
If we restrict the 'thousands of manuscripts' to contemporary times of Jesus and Co.,explain how a thousand scrolls (or parts thereof) managed to survive the book-burning of the Romans, while zero remained of early Christian literature. Were they sloppy house-keepers? Couldn`t see the writing on the wall? No warnings from Prophet-Man to secret a few MS away for posterity? And don`t bother going along the lines of the DSS belonging only to the Essenes. The scrolls came from a eclectic collection across the Jewish community. IOW, a library. Or several. But, surprise, surprise, naught of any Christian community. Why do you think that might be, Buz?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2009 10:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 139 of 306 (494911)
01-19-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
01-16-2009 8:11 PM


No contemporary accounts of Jesus, case closed.
Buzzsaw writes:
Magdalen Papyrus (P64) Matthew 26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23 and 31. Before 66 A.D. 125 3
Magdalen Papyrus (P64)- Not a contemporary source. Dated by the consensus of Biblical scholars and papyrologists to approx 200 AD. (Colin Roberts, An Early Papyrus pp. 233-237)
Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q5 Mark 6:52-53 Before 68 A.D.
"could be as early as A.D. 50" 46 4
Dead Sea Scroll MSS 7Q4 1 Timothy 3:16-4:3 Before 68 A.D. 140 5
Dead Sea Scrolls MSS 7Q5 and 7Q4- Determined by the consensus of Biblical scholars to not be a source of NT writings.
Barcelona Papyrus (P67) Matthew 3:9, 15; Matthew 5:20-22, 25-28 Before 66 A.D. 68-71 6
Barcelona Papyrus (P67)- Determined to come from the same codex as the Magdalen Papyrus (P67) and also dated to approx 200 AD. (Colin Roberts, An Early Papyrus pp. 233-237)
Paris Papyrus (P4) Luke 3:23, 5:36 "not much later" than 66 A.D. 70 7
Paris Papyrus (P4) - Dated to approx late 2nd/early 3rd century AD. (Comfort, Philip W. "New Reconstructions and Identifications of New Testament Papyri," Novum Testamentum, Vol. 41, Fasc. 3., (Jul., 1999) pp. 214-230.)
Pauline Codex (P46) Paul's Epistles (??) 85 A.D. 70-71
Pauline Codex (P46)- Dated to 175-225 AD (Griffin, 'The Paleographical Dating of P-46') I am not sure where Dr. Thiede gets his very doubtful 70-71 AD date from? He does not provide a source for this.
Bodmer Papyrus (II) (Johannine Codex P66) Gospel of John, "near complete" 125 A.D. 71
Johannine Codex P66- Dated to approx 200 AD (Herbert Hunger. Zur Datierung des Papyrus Bodmer II)
P32 ? 175 A.D. 71
P45 ? 150 A.D. 71
P77 ? 150 A.D. 71
P87 ? 125 A.D. 71
P90 ? 150 A.D. 71
John Rylands Greek 457 (P52) John 18:31-33, 37-38 100-125 A.D. 115, 126, 138 8
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2683 (P77) Matthew 23:30-39 150 A.D. 126
No problem with these date (Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers Incorporated, 2001, p. 64)
P. Oxyrhynchus 2 (P1) Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20 "not much later" than P4 (ca. 100 A.D.?) 126 9
This seems to early according to Biblical scholars who date it to the early 3rd century AD. (Kurt Aland, and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism; and Philip W Comfort and David P Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts)
P. Oxyrhynchus 3523 (P90) John 18:36-19:7 ca. 125-150 A.D.? 127
No problem with this date.
Even if all manuscripts of these had the earlier dates listed by Dr. Thiede (and requoted by Josh McDowell), none are contemporaries/eye witnesses of Jesus Christ. All are written after the fact, the earliest being the Epistles of Paul (who never even met Jesus during his lifetime) written over 40 years after the fact (according to Dr. Thiede). However, according to the consensus of Biblical scholars around the world this figure is more like 120+ years after the fact.
Dr. Daryl Schmidt, Chair of the Department of Religion and Professor of Religion and New Testament at Texas Christian University; General Editor of Scholars Version Bible Translation; member of the Steering Committee of Biblical Greek Grammar and Linguistics Section, Society of Biblical Literature; Editor of the New Series of Westar's academic journal, Forum, and Council member of Resident Fellows, Center for the Study of Religion in the Greco-Roman World, states the following about Dr. Thiede's works on New Testament manuscripts:
Dr. Schmidt writes:
Thiede collects and presents in English nineteen pieces he previously published in the past decade. Many of these were originally in German or French and some in sources not easily accessible, so most of this material is available here for the first time to English readers. The chapters are grouped in two sections: "The New Testament: Reappraising the Evidence" and "Qumran: The Search for Meaning." The grandiose book title and section headings fail to divulge Thiede's actual agenda: assigning a first-century date to four small scraps of Greek papyri.
Three of the scraps were the basis for the incredibly misleading news reports in 1995, which Thiede has since expanded into an entire book, Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels (Doubleday, 1996). What's so amazing is that there is no evidence here whatsoever. The only scholarly article Thiede has ever written on the subject is included here as chapter two. Its original appearance in January 1995, in a hard-to-find technical journal, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, was heralded in front page Christmas Eve headlines in the London Times, "Oxford papyrus 'is eyewitness record of the life of Christ.'
The reader can now discover how that original article makes no claims of the sort. Thiede argues only that the three pieces of Matthew that make up the Magdalen Papyrus (P64), usually dated "ca. 200," share similarities with handwriting from earlier papyri and thus should be redated between 70 and 100 C.E. This would make them slightly earlier than any other fragment of the New Testament, but would not qualify them as pieces of an "eyewitness" account. That claim was based entirely on the media hype Thiede generated through a journalist accomplice.
In contrast to his relatively cautious academic paper, Thiede uses as the leadoff chapter a more speculative public lecture he delivered at the same time. Freed from scholarly constraints, he does not hesitate to draw startling theological implications. Without any additional arguments, he now moves the Magdalen Papyrus back before 70 C.E. to "the lifetime of disciples, apostles, contemporaries" of Jesus. This allows him to picture the Magdalen Papyrus as a direct copy of the original scroll written by the apostle Matthew.
The primary reason this matters so to Thiede is that the Magdalen Papyrus uses a "sacred name" abbreviation when Jesus is called kyrios, "lord" or "master." Early Christian manuscripts abbreviated nomin sacra ("sacred names") used for Jesus, God, and Spirit, as well as a dozen other associated nouns, such as Father, Son, Heaven, David, Israel and Jerusalem. Thiede contends that the very act of using such an abbreviation was a visual way for Christians to show that "Jesus was Lord and God". On this basis alone rests the sensational claim repeated in the news media that Thiede had discovered evidence that Jesus was considered divine by his own disciples. There is of course no such evidence.
Typical of Thiede's disingenuousness, the actual evidence argues against Thiede's presumption. The context of the abbreviation here in Mt 26:22 is someone calling Jesus Kyrie, which can mean merely "Sir" or "master," rather than "Lord." In the other earliest surviving New Testament papyri, this word gets abbreviated regardless of what it means, including when it is addressed to Philip in Jn 12:21 and when Jesus uses it in parables about masters and slaves. Likewise the name Jesus gets abbreviated even when it refers to Joshua (Heb 4:8) and to Justus (Col 4:11). Such mundane uses of the "sacred name" abbreviations would totally surprise the naive reader who might well assume that Thiede was telling the whole truth.
The fourth piece of Greek papyrus that preoccupies Thiede is a tiny fragment from Qumran Cave 7. He has become the chief champion of an earlier proposal that this actually belongs to the gospel of Mark. Section Two of this book, as well as the longest chapter in the first section, is devoted to assorted articles that both debunk other proposed identifications, such as Jer 7:3b-5, and argue for the plausibility of Mk 6:52-53. The Qumran fragment has fewer than a dozen complete letters and the only complete word is kai ("and"). In order to make it match Mk 6, Thiede has to justify a spelling variation, an entire missing phrase, and special reconstructions of broken off letters.
Thiede's forte is creating scenarios that answer critics' objections to his astonishing suggestions. How would the gospel of Mark end up in a Qumran cave? As Jewish Christians fled Jerusalem for Pella in 62 or 66 C.E., they dropped their scrolls off for the Essenes to deposit in the caves. Thiede further speculates that when they returned to Jerusalem a decade after the war they built the first synagogal church on Mount Zion on "the rubble of their former living quarters".
The remaining pieces that fill the book are an odd assortment. But they share one common feature with the rest of Thiede's work: a strong aversion to any use of higher criticism. The epitome is probably "St. Peter: A New Approach to Biography." A more apt sub-title would be: "Reviving Hagiography." Thiede's "new approach" is a total harmonization of everything associated with the name "Peter" and "Cephas" in early Christian tradition, from "rock words" in the Old Testament to his relics buried below St. Peter's Basilica. Thiede confidently assures the reader at the end that the Vatican bones appear to be from the period of Peter and "archaeological and church historical evidence reliably prove the tomb's location on the southern slope of the Vatican hill".
The outlet for such uncritical pious propaganda is itself surprising. It was one of Thiede's contributions to Das Grosse Bibellexikon, a new German edition of an old Illustrated Bible Dictionary first produced by InterVarsity Press in 1962. In a companion piece Thiede describes the role of "shorthand writing" in the composition of the New Testament. The distinctive long speeches in Matthew are evidence that "Matthew/Levy the customs official" may well have "taken down in shorthand words spoken by Jesus".
In the introduction Thiede defends his approach with language that leaves the critical reader incredulous. The "outlandish but bestselling theories" of people such as John Dominic Crossan create a greater need "to take the sources seriously, to bid good-bye to presuppositions...and vested interests." Using the "often amazing amount of first-hand evidence" and "the growing awareness of circumstantial evidence," Thiede seeks to "do justice to idiosyncrasies" in the biblical texts. To illustrate this approach, he cites the Bethesda pool in John 5:2: "Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Bethesda, which has five porticoes." Since archaeologists have found such a pool and shown that the Romans destroyed it in 70 C.E., and the author's statement is in the present tense, "it follows logically and conclusively that this text was written before AD 70" (xii).
Such is the logical and conclusive reasoning of Thiede. He does not even raise the question of possible pre-70 traditions that may be preserved in a story such as John 5. And of course he also never addresses all the internal evidence that convinces even cautious scholars that John was written near the end of the first century. Thiede's eye is only looking for anything in any New Testament text that can be used to argue that it must have been written in its present form before 70, and by the apostle whose name is attached to that text.
It is a commentary about our times that such theories sound outlandish to an ever smaller audience and all the more quickly lead to bestselling books. It seems to matter even less that Thiede has never held an academic post (he directs his own institute) and that his claims have been dismissed as utterly groundless by reputable scholars. The good news is that the need for honest historical criticism is greater than ever.
Dr. Gary Burge, Professor of New Testament at Wheaten College, member of the Institute for Biblical Research, Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research (Cambridge, England), The Society of Biblical Literature states the following:
Dr. Gary Burge, "Indiana Jones and the Gospel Parchments", Christianity Today, October 28, 1996 writes:
Thiede is no stranger to controversy. Threaded through all of his arguments is his view that a portion of Mark 6:52-53 is among the 18 Greek fragments found in Qumran cave seven. And since Qumran was destroyed in a.d. 68, this would make the scrap of Mark (known as 7Q5) early indeed. If true, this finding would suggest that copies of the Gospels were circulating widely much earlier than is generally believed. But this theory has been vigorously challenged, and at least for this reviewer, the fragment from Qumran is far too uncertain to support Thiede's conclusions. (Thiede even has to emend Mark 6:52-53 in order to make the Qumran papyrus work for him!)...
Dr. Sigrid Peterson, PhD in Religious Studies, Coordinator of OG(Old Greek)/LXX (Septuagint) Variants at the University of Pennsylvania:
Dr. Sigrid Peterson, "Media Papyri: Examining Carsten Thiede's Rediscovered Fragments" May 14, 1995, (Revised September 1995) writes:
Thiede's 1995 article suggests a lowered date for {P}64 -- P. Magdalen Gr.17 -- by arguments which are methodologically unsound. His further argument that there are nomina sacra used in place of IHSOUS and KURIE is an extremely flimsy one. These fragments of papyrus do not witness directly to the reconstructions with recognizable inked letters on physical papyrus. The layout of visible letters in one case supports Thiede's (and Roberts's) observation that the text contains Greek letters which represent the numeral 12, rather than the Greek word for 12. In the other cases, other plausible reconstructions of the lines are also possible. In the absence of more data, such as the Barcelona fragments might provide, these fragments do not provide any firm evidence for the existence of nomina sacra in either Roberts's date of ca. 200, or Thiede's 1st century dating.
The Reverend Professor David C. Parker, Edward Cadbury Professor of Theology and Director of the Centre for the Editing of Texts in Religion at the Department of Theology and Religion at the University of Birgingham, UK; Co-editor, The International Greek New Testament Project, The Vetus Latina Project and The Codex Sinaiticus Project states:
Dr. Parker, "Was Matthew written before 50 CE? The Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew" in 'Expository Times', 107.2 (November 1995) pp.40-43 writes:
This is not an exhaustive description of the shortcomings in Thiede's paper. It is a list of the chief of them. They are so fundamental as to render his paper worthless. I find it extraordinary that any one could even have thought of comparing the Magdalen papyrus with these hands from Qumran, or, having done so, find it closer to them than to the early stages of biblical majuscule. Thiede has failed to achieve his necessary objectives. It is a matter for sorrow that such a claim should have been made in so public a manner.
Dr. Peter Head, Affiliated Senior Lecturer in New Testament, Cambridge University; New Testament Research Fellow at Tyndale House and member of the Early Greek Bible Manuscripts Project sponsored by Tyndale House, International Centre for Biblical Research at Cambridge University.
Dr. Head writes:
We agree with Thiede when he wrote ”Caution is always the best approach in the dating of manuscripts’. In this article an attempt has been made both to hear and to critically investigate his claims regarding the date of P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P64. Although we recognize the service that he has performed in facilitating a reexamination of methodological presuppositions, our verdict on his claims is a negative one. The very early manuscripts to which Thiede appealed for close parallels to P64 turned out to be not as close as the somewhat later ones which he had overlooked. Although there is no absolutely definite evidence by which P. Magd. Gr. 17 = P 64 can be dated with certainty, the available evidence points to a date around AD 200. To be on the safe side I would suggest plus or minus fifty years as the possible range.
These are not the only Biblical scholars (many of whom are Christians or even ministers themselves) to express "severe doubt" (that is the polite term used) used by Thiede in his research. The consensus of the Biblical scholars weighs against Thiede's sole errant opinion.
Regardless, there are no contemporary sources of the life of Jesus. Case closed.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2009 8:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2009 8:22 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 306 (494953)
01-20-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate
01-19-2009 10:41 PM


Re: No contemporary accounts of Jesus, case closed.
DA writes:
Regardless, there are no contemporary sources of the life of Jesus. Case closed.
DA, you appear to be raising the bar way up from what anyone is claiming. Neither Jeremiah or anyone here is claiming that there are contemporary sources. The claim is that nothing compares to the proximity of the existing copies to the original ancient historians etc. You go at length to discredit 200 AD copies when that is remarkably close compared to Aristotle, Plato, etc who's literature is not questioned.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-19-2009 10:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-20-2009 9:13 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 142 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-20-2009 10:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 141 of 306 (494962)
01-20-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
01-20-2009 8:22 AM


Re: Quran early manuscripts closer to original composition dates than NT, case closed
DA, you appear to be raising the bar way up from what anyone is claiming. Neither Jeremiah or anyone here is claiming that there are contemporary sources. The claim is that nothing compares to the proximity of the existing copies to the original ancient historians etc. You go at length to discredit 200 AD copies when that is remarkably close compared to Aristotle, Plato, etc who's literature is not questioned.
Wrong. I already showed you that the manuscripts of the Qu'ran are closer to the original composition dates than that of the Bible. Your argument is false and without merit. Who cares about the composition date to earliest known manuscripts for Aristotle and Plato. That is a strawman argument that I (and many scholars) have knocked down and beat to death.
Here is the definition of a strawman argument so you can understand what I am talking about (from Logical Fallacies.com:
"A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it."
1. You proposed that the Bible has existing documents closed to estimated original composition dates than any other literature citing Aristotle as an example.
2. I ask why are you using Aristotle since that is not even close to being a close proximity between original composition to earliest known manuscripts and stated this is a deliberate strawman argument you are setting up. I then show you dates of Qur'an manuscripts that rival if not beat the original composition to earliest manuscript dates of the Bible. I also show specific evidence both manuscripts from contemporary source (at the same time), statues, engravings, coins, etc. dating to the same time as Caesar confirming his existence also dubunking your argument.
3. You ignore this and keep on about Aristotle, so I entertain your notion and show you that the internal and external consistency of his own writings and that of contemporary sources justify scholars to determine that he was a real person. I then state that even if this were not the case it would make no difference what so ever.
4. Then you make the obviously false statement AFTER SHOWING EVIDENCE THAT THE QU'RAN MANUSCRIPTS ARE CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPOSITION DATES THAN THE BIBLE, that
Buzzsaw writes:
The claim is that nothing compares to the proximity of the existing copies to the original ancient historians etc. You go at length to discredit 200 AD copies when that is remarkably close compared to Aristotle, Plato, etc who's literature is not questioned.
Bullshit! It is questioned. This is a blatantly false statement. Your argument is debunked. If we should trust authenticity the Bible off of this criteria than we should also with trust the authenticity of the Qu'ran for surpassing this same criteria.
Try again!
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Add subtitle

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2009 8:22 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2009 1:52 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 142 of 306 (494974)
01-20-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
01-20-2009 8:22 AM


Re: No contemporary accounts of Jesus, case closed.
The claim is that nothing compares to the proximity of the existing copies to the original ancient historians etc. You go at length to discredit 200 AD copies when that is remarkably close compared to Aristotle, Plato, etc who's literature is not questioned.
The closeness of existing manuscripts to supposed original composition dates in no way can prove/substantiate whether a work (religious, philosophical or otherwise) is fiction or not. Otherwise Scientology would be considered true because of the authenticity of the composition of L. Ron Hubbard's books such as Dianetics (whoops did I say that, hopefully the Scientologists don't take me out ) which we can confirm beyond a doubt were written and published by him and I am sure the Scientologists probably have some of his original typewritten manuscripts and notes.
It is only through corroborating, contemporary evidence (evidence found at the same time a event, person, etc existed) can these things/people/etc be determined to be historically authenticated (really existed).
Jesus Christ does not pass this test of authenticity.
However, why do we need to question the authenticity of the literature of Aristotle or Plato? As Dwise so elloquantly pointed out, it makes no difference whether Aristotle or Plato were real people or fictional characters. There writings are important not because of who they were as human beings but because of what they said. Most people or even scholars couldn't remember the intricate details of there lives (even though it is spelled out in in historical biographies from different sources) but they sure the hell know what there writing represented. Plato and Aristotle were falible human beings that came up with some really good stuff but who also made a lot of errors i.e. endorsed slavery, made some major biology and physics blunders, etc. Do we care whether they were real or not or whether their writings were authentic or not? Only for the sake of understanding history. Would it change our lives if we found out that Plato and/or Aristotle were invented by a small group of Athenian scholars in the 3rd century? Of course not, though it may slightly deflate our opinion that two men could develop such monumental writings in Ancient history, thats it. The world would not change.
Does your Jesus pass this test of authenticity? Does it make a difference of whether his real or not? Yes. It impacts the human species (and all of creation) on a grand scale! The eternal destiny of mankind is at stake. All the more reason for assuring its authenticity? Do you get my point? If Jesus is not real (or I should say Christians determined him not to be real) than Christianity would fall apart.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2009 8:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2009 10:30 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 143 of 306 (494976)
01-20-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by DevilsAdvocate
01-20-2009 10:16 AM


Re: No contemporary accounts of Jesus, case closed.
Hello DA, I enjoyed your posts on this topic, very well written.
I'd like to add a bit though, to this:
DevilsAdvocate writes:
If Jesus is not real (or I should say Christians determined him not to be real) than Christianity would fall apart.
Would it not also fall apart if Jesus DID turn out to be real, but was completely different from what we read about him in the Bible? Like for instance, he turns out to be an obnoxious drunkard and womanizer, that would hurt Christianity far more then him not existing, wouldn't it? I mean, you can't proof someone did NOT exist, you CAN proof that person was nothing like he is described.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-20-2009 10:16 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-20-2009 11:13 AM Huntard has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 144 of 306 (494977)
01-20-2009 10:37 AM


How could anyone ever prove that Jesus was not real, or should I say how could anyone convince a Christian that Jesus wasn't real?
I'd really like to know because no matter the evidence that may come to light in the future, if it is negative towards jesus then it isnt accepted.

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2009 2:08 PM Brian has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 145 of 306 (494979)
01-20-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Huntard
01-20-2009 10:30 AM


Re: Quran manuscripts closer to original composition dates than NT, case closed again
Would it not also fall apart if Jesus DID turn out to be real, but was completely different from what we read about him in the Bible? Like for instance, he turns out to be an obnoxious drunkard and womanizer, that would hurt Christianity far more then him not existing, wouldn't it? I mean, you can't proof someone did NOT exist, you CAN proof that person was nothing like he is described.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to create an all extensive proof (logical statement) of the existence of the Jesus Christ of the modern fundamentalist protestent Christians. But, yes I agree with this. As more documents are being discovered (and recovered) from early Christianity the traditional NT Jesus is being more accurately defined by these "new" texts (at least by skeptics and honest Biblical scholars i.e the Jesus Seminar).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Add subtitle

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2009 10:30 AM Huntard has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 306 (495020)
01-20-2009 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by DevilsAdvocate
01-20-2009 9:13 AM


Re: Quran early manuscripts closer to original composition dates than NT, case closed
DA writes:
I already showed you that the manuscripts of the Qu'ran are closer to the original composition dates than that of the Bible. Your argument is false and without merit. Who cares about the composition date to earliest known manuscripts for Aristotle and Plato. That is a strawman argument that I (and many scholars) have knocked down and beat to death.
1. And I responded with reasons why the Quran was a poor example in itself. I'm not repeating over and over for you; too busy for that.
2. You and many scholars have done no such thing. I and many scholars have refuted you and many scholars. Case not closed by a long shot.
3. Aristotle and Plato are not strawmen for the reasons I have stated.
DA writes:
1. You proposed that the Bible has existing documents closed to estimated original composition dates than any other literature citing Aristotle as an example.
2. I ask why are you using Aristotle since that is not even close to being a close proximity between original composition to earliest known manuscripts and stated this is a deliberate strawman argument you are setting up. I then show you dates of Qur'an manuscripts that rival if not beat the original composition to earliest manuscript dates of the Bible. I also show specific evidence both manuscripts from contemporary source (at the same time), statues, engravings, coins, etc. dating to the same time as Caesar confirming his existence also dubunking your argument..
1. You're not making a lick of sense here, DA. I used Aristotle and Plato to show that manuscripts far removed from the times they were written are accepted as accurate by academia. I WANT examples farther removed from the time of their writing to the time of the the earliest manuscripts observable than those of the NT to support my argument. There are many more than just Aristotle and Plato that could be cited.
If anything is a strawman it's your Quran argument. Imo, that is too recent to apply to the ancient era of Jesus and Aristotle who's time was relatively close enough to each other to make a comparison.
DA writes:
3. You ignore this and keep on about Aristotle, so I entertain your notion and show you that the internal and external consistency of his own writings and that of contemporary sources justify scholars to determine that he was a real person. I then state that even if this were not the case it would make no difference what so ever
LOL. Substantial internal and external literary consistancy also exists relative to the NT determining that Jesus was a real person. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If that's what supports the existing manuscripts of Aristotle as reliable, so be it with the NT.
DA writes:
I already showed you that the manuscripts of the Qu'ran are closer to the original composition dates than that of the Bible. Your argument is false and without merit.
How so? I told you why that's a strawman.
DA writes:
Bullshit! It is questioned. This is a blatantly false statement.
1. It's not as blatant as your communication, when aroused.
2. You have yet to prove it false.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-20-2009 9:13 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-20-2009 7:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 306 (495029)
01-20-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Brian
01-20-2009 10:37 AM


Brian writes:
How could anyone ever prove that Jesus was not real, or should I say how could anyone convince a Christian that Jesus wasn't real?
I'd really like to know because no matter the evidence that may come to light in the future, if it is negative towards jesus then it isnt accepted.
1. The corroborating evidence relative to the NT is enough for logical and reasonable folks who search out those corroborating evidences and corroborate them to come to the conclusion that the NT is at least as reliable as the the works of Aristotle and others.
2. The Bible has always been not only the most loved book on the planet, but the most hated. More have feverishly worked to eradicate the Bible from existence than any other literary work existing while more others have loved it than any other.
That's significant, in that it is indicative that there exists good and evil; God and Satan as the Bible claims; an ongoing war between good and evil, truth and false, etc.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Brian, posted 01-20-2009 10:37 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Brian, posted 01-20-2009 2:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 148 of 306 (495038)
01-20-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Buzsaw
01-20-2009 2:08 PM


Buz,
I am sure you are a lovely guy, but I have no idea how your mind works!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2009 2:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 149 of 306 (495090)
01-20-2009 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Buzsaw
01-20-2009 1:52 PM


Re: Quran early manuscripts closer to original composition dates than NT, case closed
Buzzsaw writes:
Myself writes:
I already showed you that the manuscripts of the Qu'ran are closer to the original composition dates than that of the Bible. Your argument is false and without merit. Who cares about the composition date to earliest known manuscripts for Aristotle and Plato. That is a strawman argument that I (and many scholars) have knocked down and beat to death.
1. And I responded with reasons why the Quran was a poor example in itself. I'm not repeating over and over for you; too busy for that.
Why is comparing the Bible to the Quran a poor example and comparing the Bible to the writings of Aristotle and Plato good examples??? The Qu'ran and the NT are both religious books. The Quran is much closer in age to the Bible than any present day writings and about as far apart as the NT from Aristotle. The earliest manuscripts of the NT and the Quran are only about 400-500 years apart (and the NT from Aristotle is about 400 years apart). And the early manuscripts of the Quran are about 1400 years distant from today. So it seems that you just are refusing to accept that you are wrong.
2. You and many scholars have done no such thing. I and many scholars have refuted you and many scholars. Case not closed by a long shot.
I have listed my sources (expert Biblical scholars who have analyzed the evidence first hand) and quoted their critiques of Dr. Theide in my posts. What scholars can you list that have examined this evidence and determined Dr. Theide to be correct in his analysis of the NT dates? And even if they were true what difference would it make? They are still not contemporary sources confirming the existence of Jesus they just move up dates 50-100 years closer than what other scholars make them to be. They are still 50+ years after Jesus death.
And what difference does it make how old the manuscripts of Plato and Aristotle are. They do not have the closest original composition date to oldest extant manuscripts of ancient writings. No one is contesting that they are closer in age to their original manuscript dates than the writings of the NT. Hence, this is a strawman argument created by religious apologists to easily knock down.
There is zero physical evidence to support a historical Jesus: no artifacts, self-written manuscripts, etc. All claims about Jesus are derived from the writings by other people. There are no contemporary records, Roman or Jewish that show Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus or the Sanhedrin trying this man in their councils. Not a single contemporary writing or artifact mentions Jesus at all. All the documents about Jesus were written well after the life of the alleged Jesus of Nazareth by a couple of authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) who we can not confirm ever knew of a real Jesus of Nazareth and who only two of which claim to be eyewitnesses of his ministry.
However for historical figures of or near the same period i.e. Julius Caesar, Herod the Great, etc we have artifacts, dwellings, their own writings, and contemporary sources (both friends, neutral historians and enemies) who reference them in their writings. There is no contest.
3. Aristotle and Plato are not strawmen for the reasons I have stated.
What reasons? The writings of Aristotle and Plato are not at question here, the validity of the writings of the NT are. Besides like I said previously there are other ancient writings that have a much closer original composition to early extant manuscript date i.e. those of Julius Caesar (closer to being a contemporary of Jesus Christ than Aristotle or Muhammad).
Besides manuscripts there are a few things that substantiate Julius Caesar's existence.
Here is a bust of Julius Caesar dated to 46 BC (two years before his death in 44 BC):
Here are ancient Roman coins dating to 44 BC depicting Julius Caesar:
BTW, I have been to Rome twice and have seen many of Julius Caesars dwellings, artifacts, engravings, busts, etc first hand. It is undeniable that Julius Caesar existed
Can you say the same for Jesus? Are there any existing artifacts created while he was alive that substantiate his existence much less contemporary literary sources. No.
Even if a historical Jesus really existed there still is absolutely no contemporary evidence that he is the Jesus of the NT (deity incarnate rather than just a mortal man) and that the stories of him were not somehow embellished or fabricated.
Buzzsaw writes:
Myself writes:
1. You proposed that the Bible has existing documents closed to estimated original composition dates than any other literature citing Aristotle as an example.
2. I ask why are you using Aristotle since that is not even close to being a close proximity between original composition to earliest known manuscripts and stated this is a deliberate strawman argument you are setting up. I then show you dates of Qur'an manuscripts that rival if not beat the original composition to earliest manuscript dates of the Bible. I also show specific evidence both manuscripts from contemporary source (at the same time), statues, engravings, coins, etc. dating to the same time as Julias Caesar confirming his existence also dubunking your argument.
1. You're not making a lick of sense here, DA. I used Aristotle and Plato to show that manuscripts far removed from the times they were written are accepted as accurate by academia. I WANT examples farther removed from the time of their writing to the time of the the earliest manuscripts observable than those of the NT to support my argument. There are many more than just Aristotle and Plato that could be cited.
Like who? And what difference does it make? Do they potentially hold the fate of mankind in there hands? The reason Aristotle, Plato and Caesar are accepted is because they have other contemporary evidence that support their existence. But even if they didn't exist it would not matter.
If anything is a strawman it's your Quran argument. Imo, that is too recent to apply to the ancient era of Jesus and Aristotle who's time was relatively close enough to each other to make a comparison.
Too recent? Aristotle lived 300 years before Jesus Christ and Mohammed lived 500 years after Jesus Christ. You really think 800 years difference between the two makes any difference?? Mohammed lived over 1400 years ago. That is not recent. If Muhammed was recent than the Dark Ages happened yesterday by your logic.
And how the heck is this a strawman argument? I am providing YOU evidence of where the earliest extant manuscripts is closer to the original composition dates and you have blantly rejected this because you don't like what it is telling you (that by this fabricated Christian apologetics criteria, Islam is more authentic then Christianity)
Buzzsaw writes:
Myself writes:
3. You ignore this and keep on about Aristotle, so I entertain your notion and show you that the internal and external consistency of his own writings and that of contemporary sources justify scholars to determine that he was a real person. I then state that even if this were not the case it would make no difference what so ever
LOL. Substantial internal and external literary consistancy also exists relative to the NT determining that Jesus was a real person. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If that's what supports the existing manuscripts of Aristotle as reliable, so be it with the NT.
Ok, if you want to explore this we can and I could care less about Aristotle. Aristotle is not the discussion here (red herring subject). Again it makes no difference if he was real or not.
Myself writes:
I already showed you that the manuscripts of the Qu'ran are closer to the original composition dates than that of the Bible. Your argument is false and without merit.
Buzzsaw writes:
How so? I told you why that's a strawman.
Bashing head into wall. I give up! You win for sheer obnoxious obfuscation! (Just kidding, if you want to still debate be my guest).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Buzsaw, posted 01-20-2009 1:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Nighttrain, posted 01-20-2009 8:24 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 151 by Buzsaw, posted 01-22-2009 8:43 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 150 of 306 (495098)
01-20-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by DevilsAdvocate
01-20-2009 7:31 PM


There are artifacts and then there are artifacts
Can you say the same for Jesus? Are there any existing artifacts created while he was alive that substantiate his existence much less contemporary literary sources. No.
Well, we could say 'proofs' of Jesus exist in the 36 (or is it 38?)pieces of the Holy Prepuce exhibited as sacred relics in assorted Catholic churches throughout France and Italy. :-p

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-20-2009 7:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024