Proof of Christs existence - Jesus of Nazareth (1977) Discussion

[–] bastasch8647 12 years ago

The really crucial sources are the seven authentic letters of Paul. Paul, whose earliest letter was written a mere twenty five years or so after Jesus' execution, attests to his personal knowledge of Jesus' own brother James, as well as Jesus' closest disciples, including John and Kephas.

Paul also is aware that Jesus had a specific teaching on divorce; Paul refers to the historical Jesus' "meekness" and "simplicity", is aware that the historical Jesus' ministry was only to Israel, that he had been a real person crucified on a Roman cross, had twelve special disciples, etc.

Even Robert Eisenman, no friend of the New Testament, says that Paul offers us an excellent "window into the times".

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

The really crucial sources are the seven authentic letters of Paul.

One does not cite the New Testament in support of the claims of the New Testament; that's circular.

There's no such thing as "seven authentic letters"; current scholarship recognizes that all NT works are composites, and heavily redacted.

Paul himself has the same hagiographic standing as Jesus; there is likewise no proof he existed. He rather seems to be a literary figurehead used by Marcion and the proto-orthodox Church Fathers to advance their own agendas.

Even Robert Eisenman, no friend of the New Testament, says that Paul offers us an excellent "window into the times".

Because he is "no friend to the New Testament" (only in the sense that he does not accept it at face value, but recognizes that it is the product of many hundreds of redactive hands) one does not find Eisenman championing "seven authentic letters" of Paul. He thinks that Paul and James are the two great opponents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, "the Spouter of Lies" and "the Teacher of Righteousness," respectively.

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] bastasch8647 11 years ago

"One does not cite the New Testament in support of the claims of the New Testament; that's circular."

It's not cited in support of the NT, it's fcited in support of history. According to your principle, had Caesar written about Mark Antony, we must discard the testimony because "a Roman mentioned another contemporary Roman". Citing Paul's letters which refer to Paul's knowledge about Jesus, and his personal acquaintance with Jesus' brother and two other close disciples, is a solidly historical approach.

"Paul himself has the same hagiographic standing as Jesus"

Surely a ... silly ... jest.

"one does not find Eisenman championing "seven authentic letters" of Paul"

Pay attention. I didn't say Eisenman championed the seven letters. I said that he regards Paul's testimony as an important "window into the times". Eisenman's position is the exact inverse of yours.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

Hmm - you evidently consider what you had to say so important that you posted it twice. Pay attention to what you're doing.

It's not cited in support of the NT, it's fcited in support of history. According to your principle, had Caesar written about Mark Antony, we must discard the testimony because "a Roman mentioned another contemporary Roman". Citing Paul's letters which refer to Paul's knowledge about Jesus, and his personal acquaintance with Jesus' brother and two other close disciples, is a solidly historical approach.

Sorry, no - the New Testament does not have the same standing as a bald historical text, because it's a religious text, subject to demonstrable hagiographical invention and layers of redaction. "Paul" isn't a figure with the same historical standing as Julius Caesar, nor do his works have anything comparable in the way of manuscript history.

The reason it's circular is because you're citing the New Testament in support of claims that have no existence outside the New Testament.

You fail to draw any distinction between mentions of "the Lord," or of "Christ," and mentions of "Jesus." They are not the same thing, and they're as significant to textual criticism of these passages as "El," "Elohim," El Elyon," "Adonai," and "YHWH" are to Old Testament passages. You're still assuming what remains to be proved, and you're being extremely credulous about it - you don't seem to have a critical bone in your body. You cannot claim this is anything like "a solidly historical approach."

Surely a ... silly ... jest.

Is this typical of your critical and argumentative acumen?

Pay attention. I didn't say Eisenman championed the seven letters. I said that he regards Paul's testimony as an important "window into the times". Eisenman's position is the exact inverse of yours.

That would not appear to be the case, since you do not seem to distinguish between what Eisenman has said and what you're saying. *YOU* champion the seven authentic letters, and you've cited Eisenman, pretending that he agrees with you. Eisenman doesn't treat any of the New Testament as "authentic," since belief is not what he's seeking to validate.

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

Tacitus and Pliny do not say anything about Jesus; if genuine (and that's a big 'if') the most they do is record the existence of Christians. The existence of worshipers of Zeus is not proof that Zeus existed.

The Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus is a Eusebian interpolation from the fourth century.

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] balljame 11 years ago

Excuse me, but Jesus is mentioned by name in in Tacitus' "Annals" Book 15 chapter 44. H e recounts the crucifixion of Christ. Scholar's generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Likewise, the Roman historian Josephus references Jesus as well as John the Baptist in his "Antiquities" Book 20 chapter9. and book 18 chapter 5. Pliny the Younger in a letter to the Emperor Trajan is quoted as how he urged Christians to "curse Christ" I doubt that any reasonable person can doubt the existance of a historical Jesus.

reply

[–] bastasch8647 11 years ago

Paul's letters attest to his recent life and death.

The beliefs of Elkesites, Ebionites, Nazarenes attested to by early Church writers, confirm an ancient connection to Jesus as a Jewish mystic and reformer.

If Jesus were "just one more dying-rising god", then Paul would not have complained about mistreatment over his preaching of "Christ crucified". If Jesus had been "killed" in some kind of celestial/Gnostic realm, Paul's Gentile audiences would likely have been only too eager to accept his preaching. It was Paul's insistence on Jesus's real life as a Jew "born to a woman under the Law", and on his very real and recent death on a Roman cross, that earned Paul the contempt of non-Jewish audiences ... just as his insistence on a really, recently crucified Messiah earned Paul the contempt of Jewish audiences who found his theology of an executed Messiah to be silly and repulsive. Pual believed in a real Jesus and in a Jesus who was a real crucified and risen Messiah.

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

The beliefs of Elkesites, Ebionites, Nazarenes attested to by early Church writers, confirm an ancient connection to Jesus as a Jewish mystic and reformer.

It would be second-hand testimony if we'd heard it directly from the writings of these sectarians. As such, it's third-hand testimony coming from Christian Fathers hostile to these sects, and probably as much a reflection of what the Fathers wished to impart as anything else.

If Jesus were "just one more dying-rising god", then Paul would not have complained about mistreatment over his preaching of "Christ crucified". If Jesus had been "killed" in some kind of celestial/Gnostic realm, Paul's Gentile audiences would likely have been only too eager to accept his preaching. It was Paul's insistence on Jesus's real life as a Jew "born to a woman under the Law", and on his very real and recent death on a Roman cross, that earned Paul the contempt of non-Jewish audiences ... just as his insistence on a really, recently crucified Messiah earned Paul the contempt of Jewish audiences who found his theology of an executed Messiah to be silly and repulsive.

What "contempt of non-Jewish audiences"? The Book of Acts suggests that Paul was amicably received by fellow Romans; there was no indication of "contempt of non-Jewish audiences" save the passage that relates he'd cut into the profits of Ephesian idol-makers, a silly story that's about as historical as St Patrick and the snakes of Ireland. Jews were said to have hated him, that's true, but it had nothing to do with the kind of Christ he preached - it was his teaching that one must abandon the Torah and its god to be saved.

Pual believed in a real Jesus and in a Jesus who was a real crucified and risen Messiah.

The only thing that's clear here is that *you* do.

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

Excuse me, but Jesus is mentioned by name in in Tacitus' "Annals" Book 15 chapter 44. H e recounts the crucifixion of Christ.

No, Jesus is not mentioned by name. Nor is crucifixion mentioned. Here's the passage as it stands:

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
http://tinyurl.com/35vvvsk

Actually, this site's rendering of the text is not entirely accurate, for the manuscript from the Laurentian Library reads "Chrestians" instead of "Christians," agreeing with Suetonius's mention of "Chrestus."

Scholar's generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Book 15 chapter 44 was unattested by anyone prior to its discovery in the Laurentian Library in the 16th century. The manuscript itself dates from the 11th century. That's pretty late, and doesn't explain why *nobody* knew this tale or repeated it. The suggestion that it's an 11th century forgery is strong, no matter how many theologians and faith-based scholars one assembles to testify they believe in it.

Likewise, the Roman historian Josephus references Jesus as well as John the Baptist in his "Antiquities" Book 20 chapter9. and book 18 chapter 5.

No, he doesn't. The passages in Antiquities are Christian interpolations from no earlier than the 4th century.

Pliny the Younger in a letter to the Emperor Trajan is quoted as how he urged Christians to "curse Christ"

The Letter of Pliny, assuming it's genuine, attests only to the existence of Christians. Like the Tacitus passage, there is no mention of Jesus. http://seekerthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/03/did-pliny-younger-mention-j esus.html

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] balljame 11 years ago

In the Tacitus passage Tacitus referenced "Christos" this is obviously a reference to Jesus. "Who suffered the extreme penalty" (crucifixation} I don't know how else you can interpret it?

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

In the Tacitus passage Tacitus referenced "Christos" this is obviously a reference to Jesus. "Who suffered the extreme penalty" (crucifixation} I don't know how else you can interpret it?

"Crucifixation."

There's a point to observing that Annals 15:44 is unattested prior to the 16th century. That no one ever knew or cited the passage suggests that it may not have existed prior to its being found, or certainly not early enough to have been known to patristic sources.

When ancient authors write "Christus," they don't necessarily mean "Jesus." The term had other uses in any number of contexts. That this one refers to the Christian godman I grant you, mainly due to the expression "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus." This suggests that whoever wrote it had read the Lukan gospel ("Luke" was a product of the late 2nd century, too late for this reference to be by the genuine hand of Tacitus.) We're looking at either interpolation or forgery.

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] balljame 11 years ago

Regarding the writings of Josephus in "Antiquities:"Most modern biblical scholars do not think there were Christian interpolations based on the fact that a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to new testament accounts, not differ from them. He also mentions John the Baptist, by name, many times. "Jewish Antiquities" book 18.

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

Regarding the writings of Josephus in "Antiquities:"Most modern biblical scholars do not think there were Christian interpolations based on the fact that a Christian interpolator would have made them correspond to new testament accounts, not differ from them. He also mentions John the Baptist, by name, many times.

"Most modern biblical scholars" is an appeal to the majority, a fallacy to be avoided here, not least because "most modern biblical scholars" are theologians, bound by belief.

The Testimonium Flavianum does in fact correspond to New Testament accounts; it hits every principle point, particularly as frequently summarized by Eusebius.

No, he doesn't mention John the Baptist "many times." There's one principle passage, Antiquities Book 18, Chapter 5.2. The details somewhat contradict the gospel accounts, and there's nothing to suggest any connection to Christianity. John the Baptist was the central figure of his own sect, unrelated to Jesus or Christianity, and continues to be so (the Mandaeans). The gospel passages that mention John are competitive, and tend towards de-legitimizing his sect in favor of that of Jesus.

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] balljame 11 years ago

If you dont accept biblical scholars interpretation of the bible , who do you put your trust in. SORRY, THE QUESTION OF A HISTORICAL CHRIST HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED. YOU MAY DISAGREE AS TO HIS DIVINITY, BUT OVERWHELMING SCHOLARLY RESEARCH, CHRISTIAN OR OTHERWISE, INDICATE THE MAN EXISTED. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ARGUE FOR A FLAT EARTH.

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

If you dont accept biblical scholars interpretation of the bible , who do you put your trust in.

I don't spend my life looking for someone to 'put my trust in,' to lead me around and tell me what to think. But that aside, the thing is that I don't accept your biblical scholars, who are basically theologians seeking to edify belief. There's lots of other scholars who differ on the issue.

SORRY, THE QUESTION OF A HISTORICAL CHRIST HAS LONG BEEN SETTLED. YOU MAY DISAGREE AS TO HIS DIVINITY, BUT OVERWHELMING SCHOLARLY RESEARCH, CHRISTIAN OR OTHERWISE, INDICATE THE MAN EXISTED. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ARGUE FOR A FLAT EARTH.

False comparison. Arguments for the Flat Earth has historically been more the province of bible believers, since the bible teaches a flat earth. There is absolutely no evidence for a historical Jesus, period. Going all-caps isn't going to change that.

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] balljame 11 years ago

You realize of course this puts you in the minority. The vast majority of historians agree that there was a historical Jesus. You may disagree as to his divinity, but the man himself existed. How could this religion last over 2000 years on a lie. A lie. Thats not logical.

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 11 years ago

You realize of course this puts you in the minority. The vast majority of historians agree that there was a historical Jesus.

That's fine. It doesn't mean a thing. Majorities are wrong all the time. A majority used to believe the earth was flat and that the sun and planets went around it. That didn't make it so. The first scholars to propose evolution by natural selection received just as much resistance and overbearing, supercilious scorn as the Royal Society could muster and throw their way. It didn't make the Royal Society right, and they didn't win out in the end on this matter.

You may disagree as to his divinity, but the man himself existed.

You take that by faith, as it is essentially a religious proposition, but there isn't any evidence for it. And yet you keep promoting the same tired apologetical propositions (Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, blah blah) from board to board, even though they've been answered.

How could this religion last over 2000 years on a lie. A lie. Thats not logical.

Lots of things have existed on a lie. Numbers of people who believed in them and how long they lasted is no indication of their being true. Stop using fallacies and pretending they're 'logical.'

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] Shade2 10 years ago

There's some corroborative evidence supporting the gospels.

The Pilate Stone supports the fact that Pontius Pilate was a real person serving in Isreal at the time of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

No religion would make up a faith around a fictitious person and then have him suffer the most humiliating and shameful death. Because he was crucified and is reported as being so is strong evidence for his existence.

"Well she turned me in to a newt!... I got better."

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 10 years ago

There's some corroborative evidence supporting the gospels.

The Pilate Stone supports the fact that Pontius Pilate was a real person serving in Isreal at the time of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

Yes, Pontius Pilate was a real person; that's not at issue. His presence in the Gospels is not unlike the presence of the British Prime Minister in the Harry Potter novels. There's such a thing as the Prime Minister, but his appearance in the novels does not elevate them above the level of fiction. London, too, appears, and London is a real place, but still... you get the point.

The use of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels does not provide evidence for them, but rather against them, and the reason is because the Gospel character of Pilate is nothing like what other sources have told us of him. History portrays him as a corrupt, ruthless and vicious man, whereas the Gospels portray him as a just and impartial man, almost sympathetic to Christ. (This trend continued in early Christian literature until they in fact depicted him as a convert and a saint.) They portray him as sufficiently cowed by the Jewish mob that he offers a choice to them, and allows a seditious murderer of Romans to go free. The scenario is pure fantasy, having as much in common with reality as if the Harry Potter novels had portrayed the PM flying on a broom. Nothing like this could have ever taken place with Pilate, or any other Roman governor, not in the real world.

No religion would make up a faith around a fictitious person and then have him suffer the most humiliating and shameful death.

Why not? Osiris is chopped into pieces, Dionysus is torn to bits, Attis is imasculated and dies - the list goes on and on. As shameful deaths of dying-and rising gods go, crucifixion is not any worse than most of them.

As to your use of the term "fictitious," aren't all of the gods, strictly speaking, fictitious (excepting, no doubt, the one you believe in)? One of the most common misunderstandings of the Christ Myth is the idea that mythicists are claiming that early Christians knew he was fictitious, and made up the story to deliberately deceive others. That isn't at all the case. The view is that the earliest concept of Christ was as a non-corporeal being, seen in dreams and visions, like the theophanies that appear in Ezekiel and Daniel. This being was later euhemerized as an actual person, drawing from the Septuagint, the works of Homer, and Josephus's histories to supply the details. The result is fictional of course, but people do not write 'historical fiction' with the intent of putting across lies. That isn't the point of it.

Because he was crucified and is reported as being so is strong evidence for his existence.

Why is that? The commonness of crucifixion as a punishment at that time is not an argument in favor of it being true. Josephus relates a striking account of the crucifixion of three men:

And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

This may be the source of the Gospel story of Christ crucified between two thieves; again, only one of the three survives.

Josephus's actual name was Joseph bar Matthias; might not this have been the basis for the Gospel character of "Joseph of Arimathea", who is depicted as asking Pilate for the body of Jesus?

Here's more on possible Gospel borrowings from Josephus:
http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/JOEGOS4.htm

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] balljame 11 years ago

Thousands of early Christians suffered martyrs deaths. Why would they subject themselves to this for a lie?

reply

[–] TopFrog 11 years ago

They could have been sincere but mistaken. Dozens of Branch Davidians died at Waco -- since in your view people would be unlikely to suffer martyrdom for a lie, does that make David Koresh a true prophet of God?

reply

[–] YankeeDood 10 years ago

If Jesus exists in your heart, that is all the proof you'll ever need.

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 10 years ago

You completely ran away from IMDb, didn't you?

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] kvarkas25 10 years ago

and how bunch of fishermens would be able to invent such a classic timeless wisdom which do not have any borders and why first time christians were dying if he was a fake?Some of them were eye witnesses of him-and there was no and it wont be such influental carpenter on earth :)
I do not even talk about prophecies which he fullfilled-his life and prehistory is like dna chane its too complex to be an accident

reply

[–] KobiyashiMauru 10 years ago

Jesus is also mentioned in the Koran 27 times. Well, I guess that settles it then, right Liberals? 

reply

[–] kvarkas25 10 years ago

Koran is a cheap copy of the Bible so called 'updated' version by them and many of the Bible characters are mentioned there

reply

[–] Ratchapakinai 9 years ago

Yeshua may have existed but since god is not real, there is therefore no way he was the son of god.

reply

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

Well . . . I guess that settles that!

reply

[–] Grazie_Noel_63 9 years ago

This is a new identity. What happened?

§ "Precisely the point of a lonnnng dinin' table."

reply

[–] Sabrina (52) 4 years ago

I haven't checked myself, but apparently Jesus is mentioned by Coran (spelling?)/muslim holly book. Of course, muslims don't considered him God, but a messiah, like Mahomed.

reply