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
Pavlos,
" 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."

Uncritical googling exposes your lack of knowledge and training. There is a scholarly consensus about the 7 authentic opistles of Ignatius and the 6 spurious epistles. Also there are much later recensions of his authentic epistles that contain spurious additions of various lengths. So your generalization demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about and that you have not consulted William Schoedel's magisterial commentary, "Ignatius of Antioch" in the well respected Hermeneia series. More to follow on your other distortions.
 
revsdd said:
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.
Click to expand...
On top of that how reliant is the Q and Secret Mark hypothesis to determine the authentic Jesus? Especially when relying on hypothetical documents that don't actually exist, the arguments would fall apart?
 
Bias? An attribute assigned to things not solid and fixed ... like the eunuch's mind something open to kicking about in the mental space. This could be considered fluid or open ... not like something physical ... with form and volume ... perhaps silent and subtle ... or just recessive to the emotional exploding type ... this latter type of what's aint ... is all sown up in a' Saac (I'Zach) waiting for escape ... from ridiculous redaction in order to sway the public opinion that can be easily steered if experiencing fear and apprehension over ankh ... 've hair and bone ! Terrorism over being shafted? I'z popping event?

It is often encountered from authority from 4 area's: church, government business and the public that is suffering naïveté about the Golden Rod ... a measure of miasma ... or the fog of Taurus! Thus the entire integral (that's everything) said teach my children in a divine intent ... that authority corrupted ... by teaching them about the lyre ... a song sung sadistically so as to sway your sympathies!
 
Waterfall said:
Did you use a scientific formula to formulate this conclusion within your own life? If so what mathematical equation or other information inputs did you use to arrive at this?
Click to expand...
That is a problem for the people claiming a soul/spirit exist. If they have evidence let them produce it. it only takes one iota of a thing to prove a thing true.
 
Seeler said:
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.
Click to expand...
And I haven't said that a Jesus person may of not existed, but a biblical magical Jesus is extremely unlikely.
 
Non-existence ... the domain of Black Holes and the Sounds of Silence in the psyche ... scared to death of physical powers ...

Does cold exist? How can one experience that ... like darkness ... when a real bout of a natural creation prances by yah? Is that a metaphorical baum'r?
 
Do such extremely cold and dark areas attract energy?

Thus one could construe where passions go if they are assigned positivity ...
 
revsdd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then you are welcome to conclude that the Jesus seminar is biased, but for those of us that don't have an agenda. We use the facts at hand we don't taint them with a bias. it is extremely hard to make facts biased. they will always remain true regardless, such is the way of facts. However if you start with a bias such as a religious belief then anything that goes against that is thrown out/discarded. Which is exactly what you and other Christians are doing. Sadly this was to be expected.
 
Pavlos Maros said:
Then you are welcome to conclude that the Jesus seminar is biased, but for those of us that don't have an agenda. We use the facts at hand we don't taint them with a bias. it is extremely hard to make facts biased. they will always remain true regardless, such is the way of facts. However if you start with a bias such as a religious belief then anything that goes against that is thrown out/discarded. Which is exactly what you and other Christians are doing. Sadly this was to be expected.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, stating that the Jesus Seminar is biased is simply a statement of fact. I don't dismiss their work. I look at it in recognition of their bias and judge it accordingly. But realistically, they're biased, as I'm biased and as you're biased. So?

If your last three paragraphs are references to my conclusion that The Jesus Seminar is biased then I would point out that I don't throw out or discard their conclusions. In fact, as I said, I think some of their work is extremely valuable. I do not, however, just blindly accept what they say as fact, which you apparently do. I would suggest that your willingness to take such a non-critical approach to the work of the Jesus Seminar is evidence of your own bias as a person outside the Christian faith. Sadly, this was to be expected.
 
revsdd said:
I do not, however, just blindly accept what they say as fact, which you apparently do.
Click to expand...
I don't blindly accept the conclusions, There conclusion are the same ones I have made not by taking 15 years of deliberation and discuss with a group of people. But through study of the Christian cult.
revsdd said:
I would suggest that your willingness to take such a non-critical approach to the work of the Jesus Seminar is evidence of your own bias as a person outside the Christian faith. Sadly, this was to be expected.
Click to expand...
That's where you are wrong. it isn't a non-critical approach, it is in fact the exact opposite. If you apply these simply rules.
The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:
- The burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant.
- Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
- Evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim.
So you can see that a biblical Jesus is impossible. But a human Jesus person is more likely.
These are the findings the Jesus seminar made. Nothing non-critical about that, as said the exact opposite in fact.
Waterfall said:
So IYO, only that which is observable exists?
Click to expand...
No! only that which is falsifiable, is a sound logical argument, exhaustive, evaluated honestly, repeatable, and adequate to establish the truth of the claim. If it follows all those rules then there is no doubting it, but if it doesn't. then it is purely subjective. We cant simply rely on our eyes. we have to take other things into consideration, to blindly accept a thing without using the rules above would be foolish in the extreme.
 
Amen, Jesus has come to us in the incarnation, continues to come to us in the Gospel, and will come to us in his glorious Second Coming. Amen, come Lord Jesus.
 
Pavlos Maros said:
... then it is purely subjective.
Click to expand...

You know, I was going to make a longer rebuttal to your position when I suddenly realized that these were the key words in what you wrote. Perhaps the Holy Spirit drew them to my attention! In any event - those five words are sufficient for me.

I believe that there is quite sufficient evidence for the existence of the biblical Jesus to provide a foundation for my faith. I'll willingly concede that none of the evidence is absolutely conclusive proof of the evidence for the biblical Jesus. If it were, then, as an open minded person who's open to evidence, I assume you wouldn't be having this debate with us. You'd accept the conclusive proof. But that's not how it works. Faith is ultimately always a subjective experience. I believe in God because when I was about 25, belief in God suddenly started to make sense to me after I had been an atheist to that point in my life. I came to believe in Jesus as God Incarnate, because once I accepted that a God who created creation made sense to me, then it followed logically (for me) that a God who created creation would also love creation, and would choose to experience being a part of that creation. Thus, as I've said in other places, I am an incarnational Christian, in that the divine incarnation in Jesus is the hub around which everything else revolves. It took me a while to get there. I once dismissed Christian faith on many of the same grounds that you do - insufficient evidence, lack of proof, etc., etc. Until it suddenly made sense to me. A long story, which had nothing to do with anyone proving anything to me or presenting me with incontrovertible evidence. I had never even been inside a church until after I had the experience I spoke of above. It had far more to do with what I might describe as an inner awakening to the reality of God - which ultimately led me, as I described, to faith in Jesus. And it's entirely subjective. I don't need to prove it to you. In fact, I willingly admit that I can't prove it to you. I only need to believe it myself. "We live by faith, and not by sight," as Paul wrote. What a drab and dreary thing life would be for me if I was only able to accept that which I could conclusively prove. But if that works for you - so be it. I can't prove anything to you. I can only share how I feel about my faith.

Sure there's "extrabiblical evidence about Jesus" to quote from the title of the thread. I think the extrabiblical evidence is quite compelling. In fact I think the biblical evidence is quite compelling. But evidence didn't lead me to faith. A subjective experience led me to Christ. I can't prove that experience, nor can I recreate it in anyone else's life. It's just good enough for me.

Merry Christmas, Pavlos Maros.
 
Mystic,

if I may intrude, please feel free to ignore

About what probability would you, as a biblical scholar, fairly give for Jesus existing, if you can?
 
Inanna, this site never seems to focus on legitimate nontheistic Bible scholars like Morton Smith, but rather on fringe kooks. Respected skeptical scholars concede that Jesus existed and that he performed convincingly as a faith healer. What they dispute is the reliability of our Gospel miracle traditions, taken at face value. They prefer psychosomatic explanations for the healings They reject the virgin birth and deny that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, but concede the reality of life-changing resurrection appearances. However, they construe these "appearances" as hallucinations akin to modern ghost sightings.

Any evaluation of such a skeptical vision is determined by our presuppositions. In my view, pastors like Rev. John who seem to debunk modern healing miracles should, to be consistent, debunk Gospel miracle traditions as well. The question of God's acts "back then" must be assessed in terms of the question of the nature of God's acts today. That is why my testimonies of the paranormal are important.
 
Waterfall said:
So IYO, only that which is observable exists?
Click to expand...


Can a mortal see a black thing or is that purely unseen except in contrast or conflict with de light?

Does cold not exist either except in a refrigerated heart? Is that something unheard of by those not wishing to consume inner organs ... e' viscera? This could be construed as tripe ...

Things that lovers do like spilling their guts as gothe ... and not to be iterant ... repeated? Possibly about previously distributed sects ... not really unheard of ... especially by the higher ups that don't know what they distribute in dis-tribulative manner ... they insist mortals should know what is done or done toeM!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top