Jesus was gay - says academic

by ISP 172 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Faraon

  Irenaeus, who was an "early father" of the 2nd century, tells us that Jesus indeed lived, but he lived to and old age!

  Irenaeus, wrote around the year 180 A.D. He agreed that Jesus was real person who was crucified. He may however also have taught that Jesus lived to a much older age than the earler more direct witinesses taught. His testimony in no way overturns the earlier witnesses.

  How could he then, in his position of a father of the church have made those statements when he was so close to the time of the Christ?

  He defends his teachings on the word of the pharisees quoted on the ghospel and other supposedly ocular witnesses.

  All this teaches you is that they did not even have their s**t together in the second century.

  That reminds me of all the whitewashing of the WT of their history.

  The biblical Jesus smacks of fantasy. Jesus was a common name in the first century, not even Emmanuel. His birthplace is fantasy. He came only for the Jews, the documents selected for the NT are full of holes. He did not even know his commandments. Then you have a church father, who is not even sure of his age at death, when this supposedly happened only 150 years after it happened. How can you trust a testimony like this?
• 

  hooberus

  peacefulpete said:
  Then I guess I stand corrected, it was not the tektoniks site it was you who pulled the statement out of context to make the author appear to support your arguement.

  You have made a false accusation. Below are complete excerpts from the arcticle by Lowder.

  The New Testament

  McDowell quotes John Montgomery, who states the New Testament documents are reliable and therefore provide good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Although I disagree with McDowell (and Montgomery) over the degree of reliability of the New Testament, that disagreement is irrelevant here. There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus.[3] On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the Christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q.'[4]

  Conclusion

  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.

  As for McDowell's other sources for the historicity of Jesus, I think they are inconclusive. There is no evidence that the written works of the church fathers were based on independent sources. Tertullian's reference to Tiberius is inconclusive, as is Africanus' references to Thallus. Africanus' reference to Phlegon is probably an interpolation. The Talmud is too late to be of any value in establishing the historicity of Jesus. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Lucian are not independent witnesses to the historicity of Jesus. Suetonius did not refer to Jesus. And Mara Bar-Serapion's letter is worthless as a witness to the historicity of Jesus.[150]

  While Lowder disagrees with many of the references used by McDowell to establish the historicity of Jesus Christ, he concludes that there is ample evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ. He bases this on the evidence from the the New Testament as well as Josephus.

  Now here is my earlier quote:

  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."

  This is by no means out of context. Even though Lowder doesn't believe everything in the NewTestament, when it comes to the subject the historicity of Jesus, Lowder said that he thinks "there is ample evidence to conclude there was a historical Jesus." If you don't believe me go to the arcticle and read his "Conclusion" over and over.
• 

  ISP

  You argue that the silence from writers pertaining to Jesus is deafening. Yet you do not accept the writings of the New Testament nor the early Christian writers because you claim they are biased.

  The Gospel accounts are not contemporaneous accounts of anything. They are placed in the NT to give the impression they were first books written. But they are 2 nd Century creations. The ‘early christian writers’ were quite late! They started writing in the 2 nd century. Why did they not write at the time these things were happening? Were the events of the gospel not significant enough?

  (Of course, modern skeptical writers aren't!) If other writings would be found to have been written by his followers, why would you believe those over the others? And since any non-Christian writings are said to contain interpolations, what evidence would satisfy you? That there was writing during the time of Jesus, I don't doubt. We have evidence from the Essenes at Qumran (more of their writings have survived than the scanty Roman sources of that time period!). Since you don't accept New Testament and other Christian writings, that leaves only non-Christian ones. And they certainly are not numerous. And why should those who wrote have considered Jesus historically important enough to write about? He never addressed the Roman Senate; didn't write philosophical treatises; lived an offensive lifestyle by associating with prostitutes, sinners; most of his closest followers were mere fishermen and he was executed as a criminal.

  Can you quote any writings from his followers? You would think that Lazerus might have been moved to write a book or two or his family! Or from the other recipients of his healing? Or from others that heard his parables and illustrations or the Lords Prayer or Sermon on the Mount?

  It is generally agreed that Paul's writings precede the Gospels. So, if your assessment is correct that Paul only knew and wrote about a spiritual Christ, why could not Christians say they need not look for a historical Jesus, but that they are returning to their pure roots, the "spiritual Jesus?" Then, what is the next step? Is there a historical Paul?

  They did not look for a historical Christ. They did not make pilgrimages to his place of death, birth etc. The historical Christ was a creation in the second century. Why do you think there are so many unauthentic 'Christian' books of the 2nd Century? Why so many interpolations? If it was truth and accepted as such, there would be no need.

  ISP
• 

  hooberus

  ISP said: The Gospel accounts are not contemporaneous accounts of anything. They are placed in the NT to give the impression they were first books written. But they are 2 nd Century creations. The ‘early christian writers’ were quite late! They started writing in the 2 nd century. Why did they not write at the time these things were happening? Were the events of the gospel not significant enough?

  ISP I have already presented evidence that the books of the New testament were written in the first century. In addition to the apostles as well as Church historian Luke, Clement of Rome and Josephus wrote in the first century.
• 

  hooberus

  Faraon said: How could he then, in his position of a father of the church have made those statements when he was so close to the time of the Christ?

  He defends his teachings on the word of the pharisees quoted on the ghospel and other supposedly ocular witnesses.

  All this teaches you is that they did not even have their s**t together in the second century.

  That reminds me of all the whitewashing of the WT of their history.

  Just because Irenaeus 180 A.D. stated that Christ lived longer than the earlier more direct witnesses stated, does not overturn the historicity of Jesus Christ. I have used sources much older than Ireanaus to establish the historicity of Jesus Christ (see my above "Pilate" post where I listed 8 early references.)

  Anyway, Irenaeus was in agreement with the earlier witnesses on the basics of Jesus Christ, and his mistake in no way overturns the previous much older testimony.
• 

  ISP

  Hooberus, you have not proved anything.

  The gospels were not written at the time. Mark is oldest gospel but its writing is said to be between 70 CE and early first century. Some date it and Matthew and Luke well into the second century. (Wilson,I 1984) The gospels were of course anonymous works originally and written in Greek and not aramaic.

  Clement of Rome,numerous letters attributed to him were forged in the 4th and 5th centuries. Josephus books were interpolated to include references to Jesus.

  ISP
• 

  Kenneson

  Isp,

  In your response to me, you claim that the Gospels were creations of the 2nd century. Might I remind you that on page 2 of this thread you gave us a list of writings with corresponding dates and this is what I have been following to discuss with you. Might I remind you that there are other scholars who place much earlier dates on these same Gospels. At any rate, the chart shows that Mark is well within the first century (65-80) and Matthew is still within the first century (80-100). Only Luke (80-130) and John (90-120) and the first Epistle of Clement (80-140) might date into the second century, according to some scholars. Now, how Clement could have written at such a late date according to this chart baffles me, as he is believed to have died circa 102 A.D.

  I would venture to say that the number of Christian writings (for Paul check the dates on your chart) and at least 2 Gospels) are dated by the majority of scholars within the first century. Let us compare the number of Roman writings that have survived from the first century and see if Christian writings have fared so badly. According to Blaiklock the following are Roman writings that have survived from the first century (excluding Philo). A history of Rome by Nellius Paterculus in 30 A.D., just when Jesus is beginning his ministry. An inscription that mentions Pilate. Fables written by Phaedrus, a Macedonian freedman, in the 40s. In the 50s and 60s--philosophical works and letters of Seneca; a poem by his nephew Lucan; a book on Agriculture by Columella; fragments of the novel Satyricon by Gaius Petronius; a few lines from a Roman satirist Persius; Pliny's writings; fragments of a commentary on Cicero by Asconius Pedionus, and finally, a history of Alexander the Great by Quinius Curtius. In the 70s and 80s--poems and epigrams by Martial, and a minor work on oratory by Tacitus and Josephus' Against Aspian, War of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews. From the 90s to 100 we have a poetic work by Statius; 12 books by Quintillian on oratory; Tacitus' biography of his father-in-law Agricola and a work on Germany.

  If so few Roman writings from the first century have survived, I don't expect that many Christian writings from that period either. That is not to say that there are none, however, as some try to maintain.
• 

  Kenneson

  Isp,

  You also stated: "They did not make pilgrimages to his place of death, birth, etc."

  How do you know that, one way or the other? In what first century or second century source do you find that gem?
• 

  peacefulpete

  hooberus..please accept my apology. I interpreted your initial comment as suggesting that the Lowdy article supported an Apologist position. I was wrong. You are absolutely correct in saying that he and most secular scholars accept the likelyhood of an historical Jesus. They do for reasons of simplicity generally. It is easier to imagine historical events becoming distorted thru retelling then to ascribe the entire story to an imagination. Of course this alone does not discredit the renewed Jesus myth hypothesis. Many of the once assumed historical elements are now becoming suspect due to a greater understanding of mythology.
• 

  Faraon

  Just because Irenaeus 180 A.D. stated that Christ lived longer than the earlier more direct witnesses stated, does not overturn the historicity of Jesus Christ. I have used sources much older than Ireanaus to establish the historicity of Jesus Christ (see my above "Pilate" post where I listed 8 early references.)

  Anyway, Irenaeus was in agreement with the earlier witnesses on the basics of Jesus Christ, and his mistake in no way overturns the previous much older testimony.

  That proves that if Jesus was really a historical person in the sense of his accomplishments being true, as portrayed by the ghospels, Irenaeus would have known when Jesus died. If he quoted relatively contemporaries of Jesus as believing his life to having extended to the age of 50 (or even older), then it means that even by that relatively small amount of time after his death, his life (if at all he existed) had taken the proportions of a myth. I would not call this a historical person.

  His so called prophecies have not taken place. The Ghospels are full of contradictions. Josephus dedicates pages to common criminals, but only a few paragraphs to Jesus. There is no mention of the massacre committed by Herod, which would have been a clearly historical fact and mentioned by him. These insertions on Josephus make no sense, proving that they were added at a later time when Christians had control of the Roman Empire.