Jesus was gay - says academic

by ISP 172 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    ISP said: Today, the christian belief system is consumed with a study of the gospels and Acts when these books are highly unreliable and date circa 2nd Century.

    ISP claims such as the above would make even the majority of liberal textual scholars protest your ignorance. "Scholars are divided on the date of the writing of Luke-Acts, hypothesizing anywhere from after A.D. 70 to about A.D. 90" The Bible Through the Ages 1996 p. 170; Bruce Metzger overall consultant. (Metzger is extremely prominent in textual critism and is actually quite liberal as far as some of his beliefs on the origins of some biblical books.) Also the ciatations from early fathers show an early date for the Gospels as well as Acts:

    Clement of Rome (A.D. 95) who quoted from: Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44

    Ignatius (A.D. 70-110) who quoted from: Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Collossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, James, and 1 Peter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict p. 44

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    I do not believe ISP or any of us here believe that there were not those who called themselves followers of jesus befor the second century. What has been stated is that the gospels and possibly the epistles did not reach their basic form until the second century. The Taliban have served as a reminder of the power of religious fanaticism mixed with politics. A determined effort to remove from Afganistan anything that reminded the people of their religious heritage (Buddhist/Christian/Persian)resulted in mass book burnings and destruction of art and music. The Catholic powers of the 3-12th centuries did all that they could to do the same. Pagan temples and writings were destroyed or altered or assimilated (statues of sun gods placed in churches and renamed Jesus). Historical documents were amended with the emperor's approval or direction. Tertullian is suspected of much alterring of the records. That anything survived for us today to reconstruct the past is quite amazing and a testament to pagan zeal for their faith. Aside from this possibilty, why does the repeating of the Christian story a hundred or more years later by a nonchristian be seen as evidence of the historicity of these events? If these are not christian interpolations they at best suggest that these writers unquestioningly believed the version of the past preached by Christians, it does not suggest they actually happened as the Christians were claiming. Think about how long 100 years is. How about 3oo, 400 years yet often you hear about proof that jesus was killed being this many years distanced from the event. The "Chrestus" thing is rather stetching the limits of proof. The word means "freed slave" and was used by others of the time without any Christian reference. I myself do not feel the issue of a historical jesus will be settled soon, but pieces of evidene are coming in like never before. I will not debate your tektoniks site. I have read them and felt sickeed by the reviews of books when the reviewer obviousy did not even read more than the dust jacket. If you wish to learn about these matters go to the skeptic web sites ( skeptical review for example) and read firsthand. Then you may see the flaw in the apologist methodolgy which stands in direct contrast to the scientific Historical/critical method.

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    ISP earlier you quoted Doughty on Tacitus:

    Doughty said: But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes! Then, with regard to this particular source, I note that the earliest manuscript we have for the Annales dates from the 11th century, and must therefore have been copied and recopied many times, by generations of Christian scribes (and Christian apologists). So there were certainly opporunities to modify what Tacitus originally wrote.

    The following is a response to the specualtion that it is an interpolation (also keep in mind that there are at least 7other early references to Pilate crucifying Jesus).

    http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

    Is this a genuine reference, or are there doubts about its veracity?

    Very few would assert that this passage is a forgery [though see Cutn.JGMM, 111-2], for the evidence is strongly in favor of the genuineness of this passage. The passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have written it. (Indeed, the Tacitean polemic against Christianity is so strong that it was one of two things Tacitus was condemned for in the sixteenth century - the other being that he wrote in bad Latin! - [Dor.Tac, 149] , and it is even said that Spinoza liked Tacitus because of his anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bias! [Momig.CFou, 126] )

    This is not to say that there are not those whom we may encounter who will suggest that this passage is an interpolation. Some will weakly suggest that because no church father quotes the passage early in church history, it must have been added later. No church father, however, would have willingly quoted such a negative reference to Jesus and the Christians; moreover, indications are that Tacitus wrote for a very limited audience of his peers. The Annals may not have gotten into the Church's hands at an early date. The idea that this passage is an interpolation is no more credible than the idea held in the 19th century that Tacitus' entire works are fifteenth-century forgeries!

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Pete I plan on dealing with some of the points made in your last post, her for now is my comment on your last statements:

    Then you may see the flaw in the apologist methodolgy which stands in direct contrast to the scientific Historical/critical method.

    Those who belive in the historicity of Jesus refer to historical documents from many sources to establish his historicity. Do those who disagree have any ancient documents that say that Jesus did not exist? Even some of those who write for the skeptic websites such as Jeff Lowder believe in the historicity of Jesus. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html "I think there is ample evidence to conclude there was a historical Jesus. To my mind, the New Testament alone provides sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but the writings of Josephus also provide two independent, authentic references to Jesus."

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    hooberus..or should I say hubris, did you even read the Lowder article you linked? It well discusses the error of apologists claims of independent witnesses to a historical Jesus. His conclusion at the end is admittedly based upon his "mind" on the matter not a dogmatic expression of fact. Nor could his statements in context be taken to imply acceptance of the Gospels as history nor Josephus's words as authentic as extant. He has formed a model that allows for a historical Jesus (as Price does btw) yet admits the evidence is paultry and tentative. It disgusts me that this site of yours uses the same methods as the WT does and pull and stretch statements out of context and present them as unguarded moments of frankness. Writers such as Gould, Sagan and Dawkins have similarly been grossly misrepresented thru this method of cut and paste quotations. They have often publically denounced this twisted insertion of their words into Christian apologetics. Before you respond to my previous or present comments go and read in it's entirety the article you linked. Then we can discuss the specifics of THAT article if you wish.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Learn what the historical/critical method is. Go to the "Journal of higher critism" site and read an article about the method posted by a member of the Jesus Seminar.(yes he too believes in a historical Jesus, just not the one known to you). use the "articles you can read now" link and the article is listed about 2/3rds down.

  • ISP
    ISP

    Kenneson, I will respond further to the points you raised, but for now note that the oldest copy of Tacitus is circa 11th Century. Thats the problem with this stuff. There should be an expanse of supporting material but there isn't.

    ISP

  • ISP
    ISP
    Jehovah's Witness
    Member of a religious organization originating in the USA in 1872 under Charles Taze Russell (18521916). Jehovah's Witnesses attach great importance to Christ's second coming, which Russell predicted would occur in 1914, and which Witnesses still believe is imminent. All Witnesses are expected to take part in house-to-house preaching there are no clergy. Witnesses believe that after the second coming the ensuing Armageddon and Last Judgement, which entail the destruction of all except the faithful, are to give way to the Theocratic Kingdom. Earth will continue to exist as the home of humanity, apart from 144,000 chosen believers who will reign with Christ in heaven. Witnesses believe that they should not become involved in the affairs of this world, and their tenets, involving rejection of obligations such as military service, have often brought them into conflict with authority. Because of a biblical injunction against eating blood, they will not give or receive blood transfusions. Adults are baptized by total immersion

    Above is a quote about JWs from the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia. It contains a number of mistakes IMO. A few that I can see, 1) Russell did not originate the Jehovah's Witnesses in the sense that he started an association of Bible Students. After his death, there was dispute and a split and 2 groups were formed. Some continue to follow Russell today. The JWs do not. 2)The end of the world was predicted for 1914. Christ return was 1874. 3) Christ return was 1914 and is not 'imminent'. 4) They have their own 'clergy' that receive some pay. CO's DO's etc. 5) Some militiary service is acceptable/matter of conscience. 6)Minors are often baptised.

    In 200 years time, and you found the above would you take it as the truth about Jehovah's Witnesses? Would you believe it in preference to other material? The problem with some of the accounts , like Tacitus, is that they are from people who did not regard Christianity as very important. Tacitus no doubted had a source such as a report on the Christians or other information but how carefully did he research it? How carefully did Hutchinsons research their JW article? The incidental references to Christ or Christianity are simply not enough to prove that the man as outlined in the gospels did what he was supposed to have done. The second century was awash with forgeries and interpolations regarding Christ. You can see a list of many unreliable accounts online. You can disregard all the second century apologists. Accounts of people arguing with made up characters would not convince anyone. Its like the JW book, JWs and the Divine Purpose! What you dont have is material from people at the time. Jesus was such a powerful force that his life could not have gone unnoticed by people in general for so long in terms of writings, culture. After his death you would expect there to be people that would have flocked to his birthplace, place of death, significant places etc. etc. etc. None of this happens. The silence is deafening.

    ISP

  • ISP
    ISP

    BTW the June 15 2003 WT is about Jesus!

    It asks the question 'Do you believe in the existence of the man named Albert Einstein'? Excuse we have masses of information about him from all areas...at the time he lived. If no one spkoke of him 200 years we would find it funny, wouldn't we?

    ISP

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    very nice comment ISP

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit