Huge can of worms here. I find this debate riddled with people who falsely claim to have no vested interest in "who's ultimately right." Carrier acts as if it doesn't matter to him one way or another. Methinks he doth protest too much. Ehrman says it makes no difference to him either. That's almost certainly a lie. Mythicists are ostracized in his field. To come out as one would be attempted career suicide. The majority of Bible scholars are practicing Christians [duh], so they have a religious interest in maintaining historicity as the default view. I would like to think I'm not biased here because whether I believe is unaffected by whether there was a historical figure at the outset of Christianity. But my interest in the subject betrays at least some bias. But bias has many meanings, only few of which lead to the conclusion that a person holding the bias cannot be trusted.
I trust you guys to be honest and hope I've earned your trust in that regard as well, even if we disagree about... everything.
Yeah I’ve just started disclose bias up front. It’s going to be there regardless of whether people think it’s not because they presume they have the “truth”.
Fundamentalists, Atheists, Non Fund Christians, Buddhists, Moslem, Jewish
All would have some distinct bias on this topic that would need to be highlighted to make progress towards any resolution.
It is plausible that there is a scribe or forgery error in Josephus or Eusibius or that one or the other had an agenda.
This thread is turning out like one of those hour long “In Search Of” shows I’ve seen. Sasquatch, the Bermuda Triangle, etc.
I am all but certain Eusebius altered texts for theological reasons. Recall he's the guy Wierwille accused of quoting Matthew 28:19 x number of times without the Trinitarian formula before Nicea and three times with the Trinitarian formula after. Man had a reputation.
The title of this thread is taken from an "In Search Of" episode that played in theaters around the same time Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out. I know because I watched the Jesus movie while my brother watched Star Trek. When both movies were over, we found my brother in the front row, sound asleep.
Quote
I guess the old VP rant on how where the Bible speaks on history it is accurate fundamentalism view isn’t exactly true or accurate?
All would have some distinct bias on this topic that would need to be highlighted to make progress towards any resolution.
I doubt a resolution is possible. Too many missing variables, documents that have long been destroyed that would settle the issue one way or the other.
I do believe "most historians" agree Moses never existed, and there was a time such a position was academic suicide, so maybe someday the historic Jesus will be considered just as unlikely by historians. But that's speculation.
Happy to back up the Moses claim if anyone cares. Otherwise, I would just say Google Did Moses Exist and have fun.
Based on the evidence we have, can anyone with certainly say Jesus really existed about 2,000 years ago? While incontrovertible proof may be impossible to come by, those who study the period believe there was someone named Jesus Christ living in the area and time period that we generally agree on, said archaeologist Eric Meyers, emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University.
“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Meyers.”The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”
“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Meyers.”The details have been debated for centuries, but no onewho is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”
This statement is no longer true. That's kind of the point of this thread.
Not long ago Moses would have been treated with the same deference. Today very few scholars believe he existed.
In any event, scholarly consensus is a good thing to have, and if I had it, we might not be having this conversation [see my thread on the historicity of Moses. Let me know when you've found it.
.
.
.
Exactly.]
However, the thing with the scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus is... that's it. That's the strongest evidence. Scholars agree he existed. Ask one for his evidence, and he'll cite the consensus. EVERY TIME.
Compare that to, say, evolution or climate change. There's a scholarly consensus on both, but neither will usually cite the scholarly consensus as evidence for their position. In fact, your demand for evidence might very well end with you buried under a mountain of peer reviewed scientific studies all reaching the same conclusion, albeit independently.
You don't get that with the historicity of Jesus. You get the scholarly consensus, which does not correct for the fact that the field is dominated by practicing Christians who would lose their faith and their livelihoods if they came to any other conclusion. Ask the rest for their evidence and they will invariably cite the same five pieces of evidence, some of which is of questionable value and all of which derives from the very stories whose historicity is being questioned in the first place.
GSC has a new rule. You can ONLY post a topic and discuss it if you have NOT made up your mind.
Since cman has made up his mind about this topic and never took it seriously and insists on making it about me instead, and since he has made upbhis mind about me and won't consider the possiblity he's wrong, cman by his own rule is barred from the rest of the conversation.
Couple of observations: funny how he pretty much summed up the info we've reviewed on this thread, which is not a scholarly site (just a bunch of people pontificating about our thoughts and biases). What does he give us that we didn't already cover? The scholarly consensus and three non-Christian references, one of which [TF] is at LEAST questionable (the only real question is HOW interpolated it is), one we haven't really explored (Josephus' reference to James the Brother of Jesus who was called Christ), and one I covered in a previous post (Tacitus, which is CLEARLY derivative of Christian doctrine and thus not independent of it).
Interaction with genuine historical figures does not make a legendary person historical. Robin Hood married Richard the Lionheart's cousin! There was a time most historians agreed Robin Hood really existed. Today that thesis is near-comical, even though King Richard was certainly real.
John the Baptist was real. Pontius Pilate was real. The fact that the stories of Jesus have him interacting with them does not make Jesus real. Fictional characters interact with real ones all the time in literature and popular culture. Abraham Lincoln never hunted vampires.
So, did Tacitus review Roman execution records from first century Palestine when he wrote that Pilate had Jesus put to death? Maybe. But it's hard to imagine he went to such trouble for an aside about pinning blame for the great fire of Rome on a cult. But if he did, then Jesus clearly existed. I doubt highly that he did. But I'm not the expert.
But I would think that if the evidence for a historical Jesus was SO overwhelming that it led to an unbiased and reliable scholarly consensus, they would have found more than we managed to unearth on a message board that doesn't even rise to the level of amateur.
Maybe it doesn't count, what happens in the heart of a man or woman, to many I suppose that is the case. Not to me. Cause it's very real, more real than any ancient texts or artifacts.
Not that I expect anyone to listen to four hours of debate, but I did want to demonstrate that the subject matter warrants more than a dismissive reference to Melville.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life
King James Version
what is john talking about......the word of life is not scripture in a book
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life
King James Version
what is john talking about......the word of life is not scripture in a book
So consensus says this john would be John the evangelist, different from John the apostle, different than gospel John author.
Ironically, this would be a quote from scripture in a book.
What was he writing about? I think it was Jesus. The quote sounds like he was with Jesus like John apostle but this was a different guy who lived later who likely never met Jesus.
The words are inspiring though using a figure of speech to refer to “Word” as life filled, getting people to expect a bigger “life” quality reading this “Word”
don't want it in this discussion, yet it is very relevant
certainly it can't be 'proved' who wrote what, with limited resources
Like I said, "first off."
I never said I don't want it in this discussion. All I said was that it was not written by anyone relevant to it. Had the Apostle John left a written record testifying he hung out with Jesus before the crucifixion and after, THAT would be relevant. In fact, that's why you're citing this document. Except when you learn the Apostle John didn't write it, suddenly it's impossible to tell who did and what does it matter anyway? Isn't it funny how we know for a fact who wrote the books of the NT until there's a challenge, and then it's suddenly "well how could anyone really know..."?
It matters because forgeries are designed to trick the gullible into thinking they are reading the words of someone they can trust. It's a perversion of "appeal to authority," which is itself an informal logical fallacy.
We do know that whoever wrote I John desperately wanted people to know that Christ had come in the flesh, andcto reject those who taught otherwise, an admonition that would have been completely unnecessary UNLESS THERE WERE EARLY CHRISTIANS WHO TAUGHT OTHERWISE.
you totally missed the point of the scripture I quoted
it certainly wasn't about that garbage you just said
Is the point that you have an undisclosed Christian Fundamentalist bias? Or disclosed?
I used to be Fundamentalist. I spent countless hours of mental manipulation ingraining apologist and absolute views of scripture into my brain:
Then I got involved with VPs “How the Word Interprets Itself” in PFAL. Then that led to more countless hours pouring over collateral books trying to ingrain the VP stretches of scripture and short attention span homiletics into my brain as well.
It took quite a while to see the hook in that fishing rig. It was baited with intellectualism, belonging in a group, a feeling of superiority. But that house is built on sand not rock.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
60
36
29
24
Popular Days
Feb 25
41
Feb 27
25
Mar 3
17
Feb 29
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 60 posts
cman 36 posts
chockfull 29 posts
Nathan_Jr 24 posts
Popular Days
Feb 25 2024
41 posts
Feb 27 2024
25 posts
Mar 3 2024
17 posts
Feb 29 2024
12 posts
Popular Posts
cman
I doubt your conclusions Raf, though I respect your right to voice them.
Rocky
Hallelujah!
Nathan_Jr
Been thinking about why Peter and James didn't squash Paul. Who knows... Maybe because they had received intimate, secret training. Maybe they had been taught to guard the secrets and were warned
Posted Images
chockfull
Yeah I’ve just started disclose bias up front. It’s going to be there regardless of whether people think it’s not because they presume they have the “truth”.
Fundamentalists, Atheists, Non Fund Christians, Buddhists, Moslem, Jewish
All would have some distinct bias on this topic that would need to be highlighted to make progress towards any resolution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am all but certain Eusebius altered texts for theological reasons. Recall he's the guy Wierwille accused of quoting Matthew 28:19 x number of times without the Trinitarian formula before Nicea and three times with the Trinitarian formula after. Man had a reputation.
The title of this thread is taken from an "In Search Of" episode that played in theaters around the same time Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out. I know because I watched the Jesus movie while my brother watched Star Trek. When both movies were over, we found my brother in the front row, sound asleep.
I would argue it is not. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I doubt a resolution is possible. Too many missing variables, documents that have long been destroyed that would settle the issue one way or the other.
I do believe "most historians" agree Moses never existed, and there was a time such a position was academic suicide, so maybe someday the historic Jesus will be considered just as unlikely by historians. But that's speculation.
Happy to back up the Moses claim if anyone cares. Otherwise, I would just say Google Did Moses Exist and have fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Based on the evidence we have, can anyone with certainly say Jesus really existed about 2,000 years ago? While incontrovertible proof may be impossible to come by, those who study the period believe there was someone named Jesus Christ living in the area and time period that we generally agree on, said archaeologist Eric Meyers, emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University.
“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Meyers.”The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”
Edited by cmanWorking on it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
so.....the story of moby dick makes more sense as well as many more stories
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This statement is no longer true. That's kind of the point of this thread.
Not long ago Moses would have been treated with the same deference. Today very few scholars believe he existed.
In any event, scholarly consensus is a good thing to have, and if I had it, we might not be having this conversation [see my thread on the historicity of Moses. Let me know when you've found it.
.
.
.
Exactly.]
However, the thing with the scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus is... that's it. That's the strongest evidence. Scholars agree he existed. Ask one for his evidence, and he'll cite the consensus. EVERY TIME.
Compare that to, say, evolution or climate change. There's a scholarly consensus on both, but neither will usually cite the scholarly consensus as evidence for their position. In fact, your demand for evidence might very well end with you buried under a mountain of peer reviewed scientific studies all reaching the same conclusion, albeit independently.
You don't get that with the historicity of Jesus. You get the scholarly consensus, which does not correct for the fact that the field is dominated by practicing Christians who would lose their faith and their livelihoods if they came to any other conclusion. Ask the rest for their evidence and they will invariably cite the same five pieces of evidence, some of which is of questionable value and all of which derives from the very stories whose historicity is being questioned in the first place.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
if you made up your mind already, why ask the question
most people have decided, until .....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Can I have everyone's attention please!
GSC has a new rule. You can ONLY post a topic and discuss it if you have NOT made up your mind.
Since cman has made up his mind about this topic and never took it seriously and insists on making it about me instead, and since he has made upbhis mind about me and won't consider the possiblity he's wrong, cman by his own rule is barred from the rest of the conversation.
Unless, of course, that's a stupid rule.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Did Jesus Exist?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks for posting that.
Couple of observations: funny how he pretty much summed up the info we've reviewed on this thread, which is not a scholarly site (just a bunch of people pontificating about our thoughts and biases). What does he give us that we didn't already cover? The scholarly consensus and three non-Christian references, one of which [TF] is at LEAST questionable (the only real question is HOW interpolated it is), one we haven't really explored (Josephus' reference to James the Brother of Jesus who was called Christ), and one I covered in a previous post (Tacitus, which is CLEARLY derivative of Christian doctrine and thus not independent of it).
Interaction with genuine historical figures does not make a legendary person historical. Robin Hood married Richard the Lionheart's cousin! There was a time most historians agreed Robin Hood really existed. Today that thesis is near-comical, even though King Richard was certainly real.
John the Baptist was real. Pontius Pilate was real. The fact that the stories of Jesus have him interacting with them does not make Jesus real. Fictional characters interact with real ones all the time in literature and popular culture. Abraham Lincoln never hunted vampires.
So, did Tacitus review Roman execution records from first century Palestine when he wrote that Pilate had Jesus put to death? Maybe. But it's hard to imagine he went to such trouble for an aside about pinning blame for the great fire of Rome on a cult. But if he did, then Jesus clearly existed. I doubt highly that he did. But I'm not the expert.
But I would think that if the evidence for a historical Jesus was SO overwhelming that it led to an unbiased and reliable scholarly consensus, they would have found more than we managed to unearth on a message board that doesn't even rise to the level of amateur.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not sure who wins this debate, if anyone. For entertainment purposes only.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Maybe it doesn't count, what happens in the heart of a man or woman, to many I suppose that is the case. Not to me. Cause it's very real, more real than any ancient texts or artifacts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not that I expect anyone to listen to four hours of debate, but I did want to demonstrate that the subject matter warrants more than a dismissive reference to Melville.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life
King James Version
what is john talking about......the word of life is not scripture in a book
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, first off, "John" didn't write that.
At least not any John relevant to this discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
don't want it in this discussion, yet it is very relevant
certainly it can't be 'proved' who wrote what, with limited resources
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So consensus says this john would be John the evangelist, different from John the apostle, different than gospel John author.
Ironically, this would be a quote from scripture in a book.
What was he writing about? I think it was Jesus. The quote sounds like he was with Jesus like John apostle but this was a different guy who lived later who likely never met Jesus.
The words are inspiring though using a figure of speech to refer to “Word” as life filled, getting people to expect a bigger “life” quality reading this “Word”
So accuracy? Not so much
Inspiring language? It’s there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Like I said, "first off."
I never said I don't want it in this discussion. All I said was that it was not written by anyone relevant to it. Had the Apostle John left a written record testifying he hung out with Jesus before the crucifixion and after, THAT would be relevant. In fact, that's why you're citing this document. Except when you learn the Apostle John didn't write it, suddenly it's impossible to tell who did and what does it matter anyway? Isn't it funny how we know for a fact who wrote the books of the NT until there's a challenge, and then it's suddenly "well how could anyone really know..."?
It matters because forgeries are designed to trick the gullible into thinking they are reading the words of someone they can trust. It's a perversion of "appeal to authority," which is itself an informal logical fallacy.
We do know that whoever wrote I John desperately wanted people to know that Christ had come in the flesh, andcto reject those who taught otherwise, an admonition that would have been completely unnecessary UNLESS THERE WERE EARLY CHRISTIANS WHO TAUGHT OTHERWISE.
More to come...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
you totally missed the point of the scripture I quoted
it certainly wasn't about that garbage you just said
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I totally understood the point. The problem is that the person who wrote the epistle was in no position to make it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Is the point that you have an undisclosed Christian Fundamentalist bias? Or disclosed?
I used to be Fundamentalist. I spent countless hours of mental manipulation ingraining apologist and absolute views of scripture into my brain:
Then I got involved with VPs “How the Word Interprets Itself” in PFAL. Then that led to more countless hours pouring over collateral books trying to ingrain the VP stretches of scripture and short attention span homiletics into my brain as well.
It took quite a while to see the hook in that fishing rig. It was baited with intellectualism, belonging in a group, a feeling of superiority. But that house is built on sand not rock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
no, more east than that, and north
it don't matter to me to be the center of your hatred, the white whale
things will change soon enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yawn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.