greatteacher: is that Kropotkin in your avatar? Sweet.
Bradley
Evidence of 'jesus' ... scientist claims it is fake
by Simon 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Euphemism
Greatteacher... I asked you a simple question. I wanted to know the date of that book. Can you answer my question?
-
Euphemism
Well I'll make things easy on you, Greatteacher... I'll answer the question for you.
From http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879759240/:
Popular Freethinker Remsberg (1848-1919) applies textual criticism and logical analysis to the New Testament, contemporary pagan authors, and later Christian apologists, and concludes (as surely he suspected he would) that while a man named Jesus may have lived a life similar to that portrayed in the Christian scripture, the supernatural Christ of Christian dogma could not have existed.
So not only is your source seriously outdated, but according to two reviews, he apparently does not support the argument that you are claiming, namely, that there was no historical Jesus.
To establish his claim that although there is historical evidence that proves the existence of a man called Jesus, neither he nor anyone else could have been the Christ, the author discusses the supposed miracles of the Christ, reviews the writings of well-known authors of the period
(emph add) -
-
peacefulpete
Golan is a liar and likely a trafficer in stolen artifacts. The debate won't die easily because of the need for various experts to save face. It is a farce to suggest wiping the box with paper towels has not only removed the proper calcium deposits but deposited the modern layer of chalk slury( only on the suspicious section of text). In addition the text was immediately recognised as the work of more than one hand and using patched together script and grammer. The lengths people go to believe something is stunning.
Euph...the book has no publishing date. In other forums the discussion is often about how to define 'historical Jesus". For some this means the Jesus of the Bible, for others, any historical person or persons who served as the template for the Jesus character could be called the "historical jesus". It is wise not to assume you know the intended definition of the author quoted.
-
Narkissos
Aside from the "James' Ossuary" stuff, I feel there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus. Which doesn't mean I'm buying the "Jesus story" from the Gospels (which one, by the way?).
Simon writes: "The oldest date of *anything* mentioning Jesus is around a 125AD." I don't agree. One is not to mix up "material evidence" (the oldest extant Gospel copy that has been found to this day) and "literary evidence": the latter is plenty that Paul's genuine epistles, for example, have been written in the 40's and 50's -- and they mention Jesus very often, however in sharp contrast with the Jesus' movement in Jerusalem as represented by James. Paul's epistles could not have been written later: Paul's heirs later did write letters in his name, such as the deutero-pauline (Colossians, Ephesians) and the Pastorals (Timothy, Titus), which are obviously different in content.
My provisional conclusion would be the following: there was certainly a rabbi named Jesus in Palestine in the first half of the first Century C.E. But the Gospels hardly give us a clue about who he really was. His (fully jewish) movement was followed on in Palestine by his brother James. However it spread much over the borders of Palestinian judaism, and Paul's thinking was decisive in making its hellenistic form in the diaspora the new international religion we know as "Christianity". By the way, Paul had no interest in the personality and teaching of the historical Jesus, only in the mythical-theological figure of the Resurrected One. In this and many other things (like circumcision) he stood in open conflict with the historical followers of Jesus -- and historically he won... The Jesus' stories we find in the Gospels are productions of several schools of this new "Christianity", probably including some genuine tradition, but not so much...
-
Euphemism
Excellent post, Narkissos.
And peacefulpete... fair point. If Greatteacher was not, in fact, arguing against the existence of a historical religious leader named Jesus, who served as a focus for the mythologizing and hagiography of early Christianity, then I apologize.
-
peacefulpete
Euph...not to argue, but I actually was less specific. In the circles of debate I read the term "historical Jesus" means simply any person or persons whose exploits served as the template for the Jesus stories. In other words it is an expression offered as opposed to the "bible Jesus". Various Jewish and nonJewish men have been suggested from centuries BC and CE as having furnished elements of the story. These are often collectively called the "historical Jesus". Traveling Cynics, militant reformers, even pagan philosopers have been offered as possibilties for "the Historical Jesus". Yet again for others the term means the Jesus as portrayed in the NT and yet others more as you have defined it. Too many hostilities arise or are fueled by terminology differences.
-
gumby
Frankly, I'm not at all surprised that there's little historical evidence of a working-class populist religious leader (if that's what he was) from Tiberius' time. Why should there be? Almost all our history from the time comes through Roman sources, who didn't give a damn about Jesus' movement as long as it was just another sect of Judaism.
Euph,
There is not another time in older history in which precise records were kept, than in Jesus time. The turn of that century documented things unparralled to any other time.......check it out for yourself. There were plenty who wrote about christians who took a literal historical meaning to Jesus......and they were refutted.
As for Josephus famous two instances of mentioning Jesus........tha fact that these two instances were not in his uncopied writings in which he first wrote, pretty well confirms they were added.
Early church fathers who were trying to prove Jesus had a literal existence in what they wrote.......made NO MENTION of Josephus writings that he supposedly said about Jesus. They made no mention of it because it didn't exist at the time.......it was added later. Nearly all honest scholars agree that the writing style of those two paragraphs were nothing like the style of Josephus. Had Josephus really believed what he supposedly wrote....he too no doubt would have been a christian.......but he wasn't.
Gumby
-
hooberus
Here is an interesting list from atheist.org.
According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.
Regarding the James passage, The following comes from from the research of Mike Licona:
http://www.risenjesus.com/articles/index.asp?pagea=acharya-s
Feldman writes, "The passage about James [Antiquities Book 20, Sections 197-200] has generally been accepted as authentic."(81) Elsewhere he mentions this text and "the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged."(82) Another Jewish scholar, Zvi Baras, states that this passage "is considered authentic by most scholars."(83) Yamauchi comments, "Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage."(84) Van Voorst writes, "The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words 'the brother of Jesus called Christ' are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found."(85)