Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Yeah, Pavlos. Everyone knows the way to get taken seriously around here is to get your evidence from people who have nearly died and ask them their recollections from a near-death state.
 
Heh, heh, heh ... can you imagine broad-based bias as it is sow'n ... onan -ism as scattered fabrication?

Good God lyres all over the place about what they know as rite or left behind ... the other cheek?

Is the other cheek outa Eire or just OBI kin obious ... obtuse as a dark power?

Such things scare some into believe things you just couldn't accept ... Harem Scare 'M!
 
Mystic said:
Pavlos, your post reveals the standard New Age screed that this thread was designed to address. Goodgling biased materiials does not establish competence. If you want to be taken seriously, actually read the thread carefully and address its arguments. Your author is wrong about the scholarly consensus about Josephus and you clearly are ignorant of the ways Gospel testimony can be connected with the eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...
Lol. Just saying it is wrong, without providing facts to back up you statement is foolish. You do yourself no favours, replying that way.
And as I understand it you asked for extrabiblical evidence about Jesus, of which I supplied in-depth. Just because it is not in the affirmative for Jesus you poo poo it, that is a failing of yours and a pure bias on your part.
Even the Jesus seminar made up of learned people throughout the world studied over 15 years put it at only 18% of the sayings and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus were thought to be authentic, they also came to the conclusion that he did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead. and that the empty tomb is a fiction – Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
And as for ignorance and eye witnesses could you show me which gospel writer was an eyewitness.
The authors of the Gospels do not claim to be eyewitnesses or colleagues of eyewitnesses. The Gospels are written in third rather than first person. "So yes I'm clearly ignorant on that subject" (sarcasm)
 
Jesus on the water ... if only he were a lighter shadow of pale personality ... like a floating thought as shocking to those that believe all knowledge fixed ...

The search for indigo continues with babe in blue jinns ... shocking sight to behold inde light of the situation of well rounded Ness ... Ness being the one in under the cover and thus dark ... a deviate from out there?

This comes after profound and distant communication with unknowns as they become familiar ... stored within me they are sights unseen ... observed in occlusion when my I'z are closed and I 'ave visions inde dark ... some say an abstract/imagination ...prim ally buried? Formerly Eros that could come up as Eris ... dissonant stir?
 
This is simulated by man observing woman ... a halting sort of system ... just so man would stop and listen to his silent function! It would come across a dark ... node ... thus un node ... heis lost IT!
 
Pavlos Maros said:
Lol. Just saying it is wrong, without providing facts to back up you statement is foolish. You do yourself no favours, replying that way.
And as I understand it you asked for extrabiblical evidence about Jesus, of which I supplied in-depth. Just because it is not in the affirmative for Jesus you poo poo it, that is a failing of yours and a pure bias on your part.
Even the Jesus seminar made up of learned people throughout the world studied over 15 years put it at only 18% of the sayings and 16% of the deeds attributed to Jesus were thought to be authentic, they also came to the conclusion that he did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead. and that the empty tomb is a fiction – Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
And as for ignorance and eye witnesses could you show me which gospel writer was an eyewitness.
The authors of the Gospels do not claim to be eyewitnesses or colleagues of eyewitnesses. The Gospels are written in third rather than first person. "So yes I'm clearly ignorant on that subject" (sarcasm)
Click to expand...
Welcome to Wondercafe2 Pavlos. I must say - it's funny to me that you denounce what you see as Mystic's bias - and then bring up the Jesus Seminar.
 
Pr. Jae said:
Welcome to Wondercafe2 Pavlos. I must say - it's funny to me that you denounce what you see as Mystic's bias - and then bring up the Jesus Seminar.
Click to expand...
And how was the Jesus seminar biased. It was made up of theologians and lay people. Unless of course they weren't true christians or your particular brand of christianity.
 
Pavlos Maros said:
This is a wall of text, however worth the read. written by bertatbertshouse, some time ago. it is the best compilation of information regarding, a possible Jesus

"There is no contemporaneous evidence for a biblical Jesus.

There may have been a man called Jesus, just the same as there may have been a man called Fred.
it by no means makes him divine!

Much of the "evidence" cited is false, or suspect, or very late.

Josephus is considered some of the best evidence - even though is is generally considered to be tampered with, if not an outright forgery (of course, the word used is "interpolated" - scholars avoid the word "forgery" even though that's exactly what it is.)




JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"),
* The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages,
* The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.
* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.
* (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.)
An analysis of Josephus can be found here:
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/rameus_on_testimonium_flavianum/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.)
Such is the weakness of this evidence, This suspect passage is considered some of the best "evidence" for a historical Biblical Jesus, go figure.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
* (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.)

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but it is merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So this passage is NOT evidence for a biblical Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a christ.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical biblical Jesus or Gospel events.
So Pliny is not evidence for a historical biblical Jesus,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/pliny.html


SUETONIUS (c.115CE)

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So this passage is not evidence for a biblical Jesus,
it's has nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/suetonius.html


IGNATIUS (107CE? 130-170CE?)

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So Ignatius is no evidence for a biblical Jesus, at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about christ.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


QUADRATUS (c.125CE)

Quadratus apparently wrote an Apology to Hadrian (117-138), but:
* we have none of his works,
* it is not certain when he wrote,
* all we have is 1 sentence quoted much later.
So Quadratus is uncertain evidence from about a century later.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html


THALLUS (date unknown)

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

So Thallus is no evidence for a biblical Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


PHLEGON (c.140)

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So Phlegon is no evidence for a biblical Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.


VALENTINUS (c.140CE)

In mid 2nd century the GNOSTIC Valentinus almost became Bishop of Rome, but:
* he was several generations after the alleged events,
* he wrote of an esoteric, Gnostic Jesus and Christ,
* he mentioned no historical details about a biblical Jesus.
So Valentinus is no evidence for a historical biblical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/valentinus.html


POLYCARP (c.155CE)

Polycarp wrote in mid 2nd century, but :
* he is several generations after the alleged events,
* he gives many sayings of Jesus (some of which do NOT match the Gospels),
* he does NOT name any evangelist or Gospel.
So Polycarp knew sayings of Jesus,
but provides no actual evidence for a historical biblical Jesus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html


LUCIAN (c.170CE)

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So Lucian is no evidence for a historical biblical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.


GALEN (late 2nd C.)

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for biblical Jesus.


NUMENIUS (2nd C.?)

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name" - i.e. Numenius mentioned a story but said nothing about Jesus, but by Origen's time it had become attached to Jesus' name.
This not any evidence for biblical Jesus, it's just later wishful thinking.


TALMUD (3rd C. and later)

The Talmud was written over the third, fourth, and fifth centuries.
In the tractiate Sanhedrin, page 43a it mentions a Yeshua(Jehoshua), who was hung for forty days before his execution. it also states he was born a hundred years pre-christ and that he had five disciples Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah who were executed along side him.
* these references are from 3rd century or later, and seem to be (unfriendly) Jewish responses to Christian claims.
* the references are highly variant, have many cryptic names for Jesus, and are very different to the Gospel stories
So the Talmud contains NO evidence for a biblical Jesus,
the Talmud merely has much later Jewish responses to the Gospel stories.
http://www.heartofisrael.org/chazak...es/intalmud.htm

This Yeshua is not the same jesus now is he

A list of other writers of the time

christianity is simply a mishmash of much older religions, and below is a list of other writers (apart from the ones in the above links) around at the time of this alleged christ, that wrote nothing whatsoever about him.
Some even walked the same paths, but heard and wrote nothing.

Philo Judaeus lived in Alexandria, he spent time in Jerusalem and had family there during the times of Jesus. He wrote many books about the Jews and their religion and history. He developed the themes of the Logos and the Holy Spirit.
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Valerius Maximus wrote historical anecdotes c.30CE
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Marcus Manilius wrote on astrology/astronomy in Rome early 1st century.
No mention of a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.

Writers from shortly after Jesus time

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.
Petronius Arbiter wrote the Satyricon in Rome.
C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome.
Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote several satires in Rome.
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome.
Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.
Geminus wrote on astronomy in Greece.
Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia.
Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of the Kings of the Jews shortly after the time of Jesus, and from the same region - his works are now lost, but Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople wrote in the 8th Century: ''Read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, entitled A Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in the form of a genealogy, by Justus of Tiberias. He came from Tiberias in Galilee, from which he took his name. He begins his history with Moses and carries it down to the death of the seventh Agrippa of the family of Herod and the last of the Kings of the Jews. His kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Claudius, was extended by Nero, and still more by Vespasian. He died in the third year of Trajan, when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him. His father was a Jew named Pistus; Justus himself, according to Josephus, was one of the most abandoned of men, a slave to vice and greed. He was a political opponent of Josephus, against whom he is said to have concocted several plots; but Josephus, although on several occasions he had his enemy in his power, only chastised him with words and let him go ... "
Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus) wrote a large Natural History in Rome.
Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) was the dominant Roman Orator of the times (his works show Stoic and Cynic ideas), and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the Education of an Orator in Rome - his many speeches are lost.
Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome.
NONE of these early writers even MENTIONED a biblical Jesus or the Gospel events.
Only AFTER the Gospels became known in mid 2nd century (LONG long after the alleged events) did anyone mention a biblical jesus.
There are about 50 writers from the 1st century - NONE of them mention a biblical Jesus.
But,they DO mention many HUNDREDS, maybe even THOUSANDS of characters in their books - including minor nobodies like servants and family, un-important names mentioned once in passing.
But NOTHING about a biblical Jesus - who must have been LESS important, LESS known, LESS notable than the most minor nobody.

Heres a few others you may want to look up.
Aulus Perseus (60 AD)
Columella (1 st. cent. AD)
Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
Justus of Tiberious (c. 80 AD)
Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
Lucius Flours (1st-2nd -cent. AD)
Petronius (d. 66 AD)
Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
Phlegon (1st cent. AD)
Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
Plutarch (c.46-c. 119 AD)
Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
Silius Italicus (.25-101 AD)
Statius Caelicius (1st cent. AD)
Theon of Smyrna (c. 70-c.135 AD)
Valerius Flaccus (1st cent AD)
Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD).

There is no historicity for a biblical jesus.

Now to the gospels

G.Mark

It is consensus among modern scholars that the first Gospel to be written was G.Mark - but it clearly was NOT by an eye-witness, for several reasons :
* G.Mark shows ignorance of Palestine geography,
* G.Mark shows dependence on oral tradition,
* G.Mark was most likely written for a Roman audience,
* Ireneus says G.Mark was written in Rome.
* G.Mark was largely crafted from the whole cloth of the OT.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

For more detail, I suggest Michael Turton's great work on G.Mark:
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

It is sometimes argued that Mark was the secretary of Peter, but this seems unlikely for several other reasons -
* there is no evidence in the NT stories to support Mark being Peter's secretary,
* G.Mark shows the structure of literature crafted from the Jewish scriptures, not recorded conversations,
* G.Mark includes many scenes in Peter was NOT present, which can only mean they are fiction.
* Peter is a cowardly dullard in G.Mark which ends with Peter un-redeemed after having betrayed Jesus (G.Mark ended 16:8 with the empty tomb - G.Mark 16:9-20 is merely the most popular of one of a number of later endings which were attached to the abrupt end 16:8.). A secretary recording the words of a hallowed elder would hardly portray him like that.

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Mark (and is the source of the Peter connection) - but Papias refers to G.Mark being the recollections of Peter but "adapted as needed" ... "but not in order". This just does not match at all well with G.Mark, which is in chronological order, and shows no sign of being the adapted words of Peter.

G.Matthew

It is the firm consensus of scholars that G.Matthew was NOT written by a disciple, because :
* it depends largely on G.Mark, copied word for word, while making changes based on theology, not history
* it conflicts with statements by Papias and Ireneus,
* it shows signs of being a 2nd or 3rd generation work
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

It is also sometimes noted that Papias gives early evidence of G.Matthew - but Papias refers to G.Mark being written in Hebrew - this just does not match at all well with G.Matthew, which was written in Greek.

1,2 Peter

Scholars agree that the letters attributed to Peter were forged by 2 different people, neither of whom had ever met Jesus - 1 Peter probably writen in Rome c.90, 2 Peter in early-mid 2nd century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

G.John

Scholars agree that the Gospel of John could NOT be by an eye-witness - because :
* the issue regarding expulsion from the synagogues - such a glaring anachronism could not be by an eye-witness,
* at one stage this Gospel was believed to be written by Cerinthus (and thus rejected),
* it tells such a different, and fantastic, story.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

False NT attributions
With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).

all the NT documents (apart from Paul1 but again do bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)are not eye-witness accounts, all are later FORGED by unknown authors who never met Jesus

* James (FORGED in c.80s)
* 1 John (FORGED in c.80s)
* 2 Thessalonians (FORGED in c.80s)
* Ephesians (FORGED in c.90s)
* 1 Peter (FORGED in c.90s)
* Jude (FORGED in c.100s)
* 1 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 Timothy (FORGED in c.120s)
* Titus (FORGED in c.120s)
* 2 John (FORGED in c.120s)
* 3 John (FORGED in 120s)
* 2 Peter (FORGED in c.130s)
The arguments for these can be all be found at Peter Kirby's or in Brown NT Commentary.

No NT author ever met Jesus
So,of the NT authors we find -
* Paul? only met Jesus in a VISION????
* several of "Paul's" letters were forged by unknown authors,
* G.Mark was written in Rome by someone who never met Jesus,
* G.Matthew was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness,
* G.Luke was largely copied from G.Mark, not by an eye-witness (A.Luke does NOT claim to be an eye-witness, A.Luke does NOT claim he spoke to eye-witnesses, he merely refers to eye-witnesses as distant sources),
* G.John was written long afterwards by someone who never met Jesus,
* Jude - forged by an unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2 Peter - forged by 2 unknown authors who never met Jesus,
* James - forged by unknown author who never met Jesus,
* 1,2,3 John - forged by unknown authors in early-mid 2nd century who never met Jesus.

In other words - the general consensus of modern NT scholars is that NOT ONE SINGLE NT document was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. You can check this is any modern commentary - try Brown's or the New Jerome or see Peter Kirby's.

also
* Initially paul? describes Iesous Christos as a purely spiritual being who exists on a higher plane, but who acts inside every human, perhaps somewhat like what we might now call a "soul" (Christ in you, the hope of Glory.) Paul mentions no earthly Jesus of Nazareth, no miracles, no empty tomb, no dates, names places, events - merely a few spiritual references.
Paul is religious allegory - our soul (the Christos) is pinned (crucified) to the body (the cross) by the passions of the flesh, and raised back to heaven after we die (we live Christ's death, Christ lives our death.)

* The other letters follow after Paul's (but before the Gospels arise) - anonymous (Hebrews), forged in Paul's name, or forged in the name of characters from Paul's letters.
Notably, Paul, like all the 1st century writings, show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story - the early Christians just did not know anything about the following -
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt
* Herod and the massacre of the infants
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?)
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus
* the cleansing of the temple, the triumphal entry
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration
* the twelve disciples or Peter and "the keys"
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas
* the empty tomb !!

So you can say that there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but we know some person wrote most of these letters, so we call him Paul mostly for convenience.
"This article is only about the historicity of a biblical Jesus - whether he existed as a real person. That is the only point that historians regard as effectively proven; that he existed, not that the claims made about him are true."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus.
nowhere in any Roman records does it state that a jesus person, was executed by Pilate, this is only written in the NT. And the Romans kept meticulous records.

Claiming that the bible is 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, BELIEVES 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 nonsense - no historian assumes 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 to 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 and includes real places and realistic people, it has Gods and miracles and speeches and heroes - to the Greeks, Homer was like the Bible.
http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.html

Both of these writings are similar to the Gospels and are similarly true - i.e. not particularly true at all. In other words being a "historical document" means nothing about a books truthfulness.

So getting back to the point, yes there could have been a jesus, but not the one written in the bible, thats all, so whether the Muslims have a jesus who was a prophet, or the Jews a Yeshua, who was executed along with his five disciples, a hundred years earlier, does not mean your jesus actually existed.

And NT Authorship

The New Testament alone consists of twenty-seven books written by at least eight different authors. Furthermore, of those eight, only three (Matthew, Peter, and John) were a part of the original twelve disciples. Of the remaining five, two were originally skeptical concerning Jesus' identity. One was a great persecutor of Christians and even consented to the execution of the first New Testament martyr. One was a gentile, and one was a young boy when Jesus lived and taught. Additionally, these New Testament authors came from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences. One was a tax collector, another a physician. Another was a highly educated Pharisee. At least two were fishermen while two others grew up as the children of a carpenter and most likely learned that trade."

The NT must be judged on its merits like any ancient writing - and it HAS been so judged and evaluated, it is one of the most studied works in Western culture

With the exception of some of the letters of Paul, we do NOT KNOW for sure who wrote ANY of the remaining books of the Bible - all we know is what we find IN the books. (Bear in mind there is no external evidence of any kind about Paul either, but some person wrote most of those letters and we call him Paul mostly for convenience.)
The Gospels were originally anonymous documents of unknown origin - the earliest mentions of Gospels are as UN-NAMED works, the current titles were not attached to the four Gospels until late 2nd century by Iraneus based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).

Papias does make some unclear comments possibly in about 130CE which refer to writings by Mark, and writings by Matthew - however his comments do NOT match our modern Gospels, and he does NOT use the word "Gospel", and he makes it clear he holds such writings in LOW regard.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html

Justin in about 150CE is the first to make lengthy quotes of Gospels almost like the modern ones - but he calls them "memoirs of the apostles" as well as "Gospels" but gives NO authors' names.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

Aristides, possibly just before Justin, described a singular, un-named Gospel that had "been preached for a short time". This is an important clue - a church father who mentions "the Gospel, as it is called" - showing that is what it is called "the Gospel", no name, just one. Furthermore he explicitly says it had only been preached for a "short time", perhaps a few years - evidence for when the Gospel became known in Christian circles.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tides-kay.html

Tatian possibly wrote an important work called the "diaTessaron" (literally "from four", implying a harmony of four, meaning a harmony of four Gospels) about 172 (after he split from the early Christian. This numbering of the Gospels as four seems to occur slightly before they are actually named, and may have come about because Tatian inherited the "memoirs of the Apostles" from Justin, and there were four of them, but they had not yet been named.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diatessaron.html

It was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current names with Irenaeus.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

So there you have it."
Click to expand...

I've read and heard all of this before.

Is it your opinion that all religions are false?
 
Waterfall said:
I've read and heard all of this before.

Is it your opinion that all religions are false?
Click to expand...
Religions come and go. There are currently 4.200 religions that does not include all the different denominations of each religion. For instance there is 38,000 denominations of Christianity. We could not know how many religions we've had since the beginning of man. we can only hazard a guess.
To there believers they are all true, they are however entitled to believe whatever they wish.
I myself prefer to use my critical mind and to filch proof everything. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/
So religions can be whatever they want to be. If however they claim a god/gods exist then there is a big question mark.
I see no reason to think they exist, and gods number in the millions. even though I cant travel the universe and look in every nook and crannie to see if one is hiding there, so I cant rule out the possibility. But there has never been any evidence for god/gods.
I am a humanist. I know humans exist I see them every day.
I don't label myself as an atheist as that is a negative term used by the theist.
 
Last edited:
Pr. Jae said:
Theologians and laypeople can be biased. Anyway, here's a blogger speaking to the bias of the Jesus Seminar: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/
Click to expand...
Speaking to there bias by an irate Christian blogger is quite irrelevant, because he is merely confirming his own bias.
The Jesus seminar was made up of 200 + people from academia, lay people, priest. etc.. over 15 years not always the same people.
What you're suggesting is that they had an agenda which should have been finished in a week, but took fifteen years of deliberating, discussing, etc. No sir there was no bias there. There is simply no evidence for a biblical Jesus, and most Christians do not like that.
 
Pavlos Maros said:
Speaking to there bias by an irate Christian blogger is quite irrelevant, because he is merely confirming his own bias.
The Jesus seminar was made up of 200 + people from academia, lay people, priest. etc.. over 15 years not always the same people.
What you're suggesting is that they had an agenda which should have been finished in a week, but took fifteen years of deliberating, discussing, etc. No sir there was no bias there. There is simply no evidence for a biblical Jesus, and most Christians do not like that.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling that you are quite fixed in your own point of view (bias?). So, while I know I could share with you other resources that speak to the Seminar's biases, I shall simply wish you and yours the merriest of holiday seasons.
 
Waterfall said:
@Pavlos Maros Is there any evidence for spirituality IYO?
Click to expand...
if you mean by participating in organized religion: going to church, synagogue, a mosque, then I've clearly already answered that. But that does not mean there is any evidence for it.
And no I don't think we have a spirit/soul. Nor do I believe in magic, or mysticism.
Spirit, by definition, means other than natural, so no there is no evidence for the supernatural. if there were evidence then it would be natural, and as such not spiritual/supernatural.
 
Pr. Jae said:
I get the feeling that you are quite fixed in your own point of view (bias?). So, while I know I could share with you other resources that speak to the Seminar's biases, I shall simply wish you and yours the merriest of holiday seasons.
Click to expand...
No! I'm open to anything. I just don't think you made you case for bias from the Jesus seminar. tis all.
if they had only deliberated over a week and come to that conclusion then you could say bias. But fifteen years with 200 + different people, to say they were biased is just is not a reasonable conclusion to make sorry.
And happy Christmas to you too.
 
Just because a lot of myths develop around a historic event or a person, doesn't mean it didn't happen, or the person didn't exist.
Maybe Lincoln wasn't born in a log cabin; likely George Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree; and Davy Crocket definitely didn't 'kill him a bar when he was only three', but they existed.
 
Extrabiblical evidence does somewhat fall into a bit of a gray area for me. It cannot be helped but be viewed from a far off historical standpoint that in itself can glamorize or demonize some conclusions. Searching for the historical Jesus can become over analytical to the point where we include so many factors from our own experience and accumulated knowledge from our own period in time, that it is actually possible for us to impose our own reality and experience onto anothers life. It is very hard to just stand back and let someone's life just speak for itself without speculation. And we are led by others interpretations with their explanation on anothers existence.It becomes like a great poem or painting, everything is ultimately left to interpretation. We either benefit from added insights or we discard them as useless.

Is it possible to still be talking about a man that supposedly existed thousands of years ago even now without this man ever having existed? Probably. Is it likely? Probably not. We believe Socrates existed with out much question and no proof except from others. Can we glean knowledge and be led into more provocative conclusions from knowing or reading these things. I think so.
 
Welcome, Pavols Maros, to WonderCafe 2.

Over the years, I've known a handful of people who were a part of the Jesus Seminar. Fine scholars for the most part (some excellent I would say) but to argue that they weren't biased is rather ridiculous.

The Jesus Seminar was a hand-picked group of scholars, and when you get to pick those who are allowed to join your group, you tend to pick those you already agree with. Thus, the bias of the Jesus Seminar was inherently self-perpetuating and inevitable. The Jesus Seminar was also, likely for the same reason, heavily weighted toward scholars from a small handful of universities, all of which were known to take an extremely "liberal" approach to biblical studies. There's also the fact that some members of The Jesus Seminar weren't exactly on the leading edge of biblical scholarship, and one - Paul Verhoeven, best known as a film director (RoboCop, Total Recall, Starship Troopers, Basic Instinct among others) and who has a Masters degree in mathematics if I remember correctly - wasn't even a biblical scholar at all.

The Jesus Seminar produced some interesting work. I appreciated the work it did on the Gospel of Thomas, for example. But I wasn't especially convinced by its methodology for determining what was and was not authentic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top