|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
[ QUOTE ]
Josephus's work is generally valid. That quote is disputed by most scholars (the earliest copies are copies of copies that date back to 900 years after Jesus) as it's probably an alteration by Christians at a later date. There's certainly evidence of tampering. [/ QUOTE ] Certainly not! The textual evidence supports this quote. It appears in every copy of Antiquities in existence today. If we're going to debate this, let's at least be honest. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
[ QUOTE ]
Certainly not! The textual evidence supports this quote. It appears in every copy of Antiquities in existence today. [/ QUOTE ] Care to link to a non biased source to support your assertion? Did you notice that I did that to support mine? Even the Catholics Encyclopedia believes there was tampering. I mean, cmon. [ QUOTE ] The reason I asked you is that I thought a while back you had questioned the existence of Jesus. Perhaps, that was the old, grumpy Phil153. [/ QUOTE ] I did, and I still do. It's not a settled question. But I defer to the learned opinion of experts in the field, despite the scant evidence on which they draw their conclusions, and say that a man named Jesus probably existed, and may have had a traveling sideshow. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certainly not! The textual evidence supports this quote. It appears in every copy of Antiquities in existence today. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Care to link to a non biased source to support your assertion? Did you notice that I did that to support mine? [/ QUOTE ] Since you quoted Wikipedia, I'll do the same. The very first sentence of the "Josephus on Jesus" article, the very same article from which you took your quote, says: [ QUOTE ] In 93, the Jewish historian Josephus published his work Antiquities of the Jews. The extant copies of this work, which all derive from Christian sources, even the recently recovered Arabic version, contain two passages about Jesus. [/ QUOTE ] So there ya go. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Virtually every detail of the life of Jesus comes from "Old Testament" scriptures [/ QUOTE ] While this is used by your link as evidence that Jesus never existed, it should also help eliminate the notion that Jesus did exist but was not God. [/ QUOTE ] I think that you may have misunderstood the main thrust of this part of his argument. Price shows how the Gospel authors plagiarized the Old Testament to 'fill out' the details of Jesus' life. He also shows how the authors weren't referencing the Old Testament in terms of fulfilled prophecy, but purely to "borrow" ideas for their story (including the mistranslations contained in their Greek version of the Old Testament). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
None of this is new or unique, see for instance a book by G. A. Wells: The Historical Evidence for Jesus .
J. M. Robertson wrote a total of five books about the histoical evidence of Jesus and the basic mythos antecedent and built around him almost 100 years ago, and research and scholarship that stared in the enlightenment has continued to this day on the historical evidence for and against a living Christ. All this is mostly a moot point to the majority, mythology is too powerful and trumps all. -Zeno |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
I believe the writings of Paul are contemporaneous with the generation of people who knew Jesus personally. Paul communicated with the Church in Jeruselum prior to its probable extinction during the revolt in the 60's, and had contact with its leaders who had known Jesus personally (Peter and James?). I realize that in order to use the letters of Paul as an historical source they need to be looked at with a special filter. That's probably true of most documents dating from that time. True, an extraordinary special filter. But still, on that basis I think they have some historical value.
Mark, Mathew, and Luke probably got scripted at least 1 or 2 generations after the historical events. Still, I think it's reasonable to think they were based on oral tradition. And a couple of generations from the events should not produce that much oral drift. It did provide enough time for plenty of theological debate to have taken place though. And it seems likely that debate was infused in with the oral tradition of the historical events. Seen through that filter I think they still provide historical value. John was probably written a 1 or 2 generations after that. It appears the theological debates infused in the story dominate by then. Although there are other religions starring figures with mythological features, I don't think there are any where we have source documents for the origin of the religion dating back so close to the generation in which the figure was said to live. My Sklansky probability meter estimates a high enough probabilty that Jesus actually lived that I'd be willing to bet on it. PairTheBoard |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
[ QUOTE ]
My Sklansky probability meter estimates a high enough probabilty that Jesus actually lived that I'd be willing to bet on it. [/ QUOTE ] Yes its a popular belief that jesus existed and has been for some time. chez |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] My Sklansky probability meter estimates a high enough probabilty that Jesus actually lived that I'd be willing to bet on it. [/ QUOTE ] Yes its a popular belief that jesus existed and has been for some time. chez [/ QUOTE ] You take all my hard thought analysis and reduce it to, "its a popular belief and has been for some time"? Or are you saying that's how Sklansky would estimate the probability? PairTheBoard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My Sklansky probability meter estimates a high enough probabilty that Jesus actually lived that I'd be willing to bet on it. [/ QUOTE ] Yes its a popular belief that jesus existed and has been for some time. chez [/ QUOTE ] You take all my hard thought analysis and reduce it to, "its a popular belief and has been for some time"? Or are you saying that's how Sklansky would estimate the probability? PairTheBoard [/ QUOTE ] If it wasn't a popular belief then do you think DS would give it a high probability? Would you bet on it then? chez |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My Sklansky probability meter estimates a high enough probabilty that Jesus actually lived that I'd be willing to bet on it. [/ QUOTE ] Yes its a popular belief that jesus existed and has been for some time. chez [/ QUOTE ] You take all my hard thought analysis and reduce it to, "its a popular belief and has been for some time"? Or are you saying that's how Sklansky would estimate the probability? PairTheBoard [/ QUOTE ] If it wasn't a popular belief then do you think DS would give it a high probability? Would you bet on it then? chez [/ QUOTE ] My Sklansky Probabilty Meter works a bit differently than David's. He can speak for himself on how his would work here. Although there might be a subliminal influence, I'm doing my best to exclude the popularity factor from my estimate. I certainly did not mention it in my post. The problem with the popularity factor is the argument that there are and have been many popular beliefs about the existence of mythological figures which are not credible. In fact, my post focused on exactly this factor, and why the Jesus phenomenon and it's source documents are different and a special case. I'm suprised you didn't realize that after an honest reading of my post. You might disagree with my analysis. But to indicate I'm just ignoring that factor is unfair. You know, Sklansky's recent thread where he points out that the arguments of those who for some reason have an axe to grind over their position are suspsect makes a lot of sense. I'm seeing a lot of strange posts around here which seem designed to avoid real engagement and use the tactic of misrepresenting what other posters say so that they can dismiss their strawman misrepresentaion. PairTheBoard |
|
|