(June 6, 2015 at 4:47 am)robvalue Wrote: I just told you I'm not a mythicist, and I didn't deny the possibility that some Jewish preacher got crucified. I'm not debating someone who tells me what my position is, so we're done.

I was not attempting to ''debate your position'' - I was attempting to ask you what you consider reliable/the right amount of evidence for such an obscure figure of the 1st century.

Quote:Historians also know there weren't contemporary references to:


Gamaliel

Honi the Circle Drawer

Hillel

Shammai

Hanina ben dosa

Confucius

Buddha

Hannibal

You should pack up this argument and take it to the Emerald City.  Maybe the Wizard can give it a brain.
Boru

(June 6, 2015 at 4:51 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Historians also know there weren't contemporary references to:


Gamaliel

Honi the Circle Drawer

Hillel

Shammai

Hanina ben dosa

Confucius

Buddha

Hannibal

You should pack up this argument and take it to the Emerald City.  Maybe the Wizard can give it a brain.
Boru

Unnecessary snark.

It's not so much an argument as much as it is what historians did not have.

The first mentions of Hannibal are 30-60 years after he died; having such mentions that long after wasn't a great phenonemena.

I will answer your question before I leave for good.

I don't need any evidence. I expect plenty of people meeting that description got executed around that time.

I haven't spent a lot of time studying the particular evidence for the crucifixion as related to trying to pin it to the bible character, I've assumed it is one of the stronger cases. But I'd have to look closely to be sure.

Thanks for the discussion but I'm all finished now.

(June 6, 2015 at 5:09 am)robvalue Wrote: I will answer your question before I leave for good.

I don't need any evidence. I expect plenty of people meeting that description got executed around that time.

I haven't spent a lot of time studying the particular evidence for the crucifixion as related to trying to pin it to the bible character, I've assumed it is one of the stronger cases. But I'd have to look closely to be sure.

Thanks for the discussion but I'm all finished now.

Alright...

You are correct in assuming plenty of people did meet that death; what differentiates it though is that Jesus was noted to have had a grassroots following and then get executed - thus giving us the ability to gauge the differences.

Anyway, thanks too, I think I'm finished now and 10 pages isn't really necessary.

A theist could call my neighbor jesus and adjust his bible a little bit and "voila" evidence of a "real" jesus.

The idea of a "son of god" in human form greatly predates the jesus story. It is also likely that the story was a myth that later christians tried to tack on a persona for credence. Thus the story is still a myth, even with a body.

The actually historical evidence for a jesus as described in the bible is nil. The actual historical evidence for a living person tacked on to the myth is weak and circumstantial despite the desperate, and I do mean desperate, bluster from the theist camp.

Jesus was a myth, get over it..

(June 6, 2015 at 10:42 am)Brakeman Wrote: A theist could call my neighbor jesus and adjust his bible a little bit and "voila" evidence of a "real" jesus.

The idea of a "son of god" in human form greatly predates the jesus story. It is also likely that the story was a myth that later christians tried to tack on a persona for credence. Thus the story is still a myth, even with a body.

The actually historical evidence for a jesus as described in the bible is nil. The actual historical evidence for a living person tacked on to the myth is weak and circumstantial despite the desperate, and I do mean desperate, bluster from the theist camp.

Jesus was a myth, get over it..

*Claps*

So convincing; you have now invalidated a historical consensus!

P.S, this argument was debunked quite easily; what a Theist thinks Jesus is, isn't what Historians view him as. That's the flaw within your premise.

Quote:Many Christian apologists vastly overstate the number of ancient non-Christian writers who attest to the existence of Jesus. This is partly because they are not simply showing that a mere Jewish preacher existed, but are arguing for the existence of the "Jesus Christ" of Christian doctrine: a supposedly supernatural figure who allegedly performed amazing public miracles in front of audiences of thousands of witnesses. It could certainly be argued that such a wondrous figure would have been noticed outside of Galilee and Judea and so should have been widely noted as well. So Christian apologists often cite a long list of writers who mention Jesus, usually including Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Thallus and several others. But of these only Tacitus and Josephus actually mention Jesus as a historical person - the others are all simply references to early Christianity, some of which mention the "Christ" that was the focus of its worship.

If we are simply noting the existence of Jesus as a human Jewish preacher, we are not required to produce more mentions of him than we would expect of comparable figures. And what we find is that we have about as much evidence for his existence (outside any Christian writings) as we have for other Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the time. The two non-Christian writers who mention him as a historical person are Josephus and Tacitus.

Josephus

The Jewish priestly aristocrat Joseph ben Matityahu, who took the Roman name Flavius Josephus, is our main source of information about Jewish affairs in this period and is usually the only writer of the time who makes any mention of Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants of the First Century. Not surprisingly, he mentions Jesus twice: firstly in some detail in Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 and again more briefly when mentioning the execution of Jesus' brother James in Antiquities XX.9.1. The first reference is problematic, however, as it contains elements which Josephus cannot have written and which seem to have been added later by a Christian interpolator. Here is the text, with the likely interpolations in bold:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call
him a man; for he was a doer of paradoxical deeds, a teacher of such men
as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the
Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ And when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared
to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold
these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the
tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

There has been a long debate about what parts of this reference to Jesus are authentic to Josephus or even if the whole passage is a wholesale interpolation. Proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, naturally, opt for the idea that it is not authentic in any way, but there are strong indications that, apart from the obvious additions shown in bold above, Josephus did mention Jesus at this point in his text.

To begin with, several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephean in their style and phrasing. "Now (there was) about this time ..." is used by Josephus as a way of introducing a new topic hundreds of times in his work. There are no early Christian parallels that refer to Jesus merely as "a wise man", but this is a term used by Josephus several times, eg about Solomon and Daniel. Christian writers placed a lot of emphasis on Jesus' miracles, but here the passage uses a fairly neutral term παραδόξων ἔργων - "paradoxa erga" or "paradoxical deeds". Josephus does use this phrase elsewhere about the miracles of Elisha, but the term can also mean "deeds that are difficult to interpret" and even has overtones of cautious scepticism. Finally, the use of the word φῦλον ("phylon" - "race, tribe") is not used by Christians about themselves in any works of the time, but is used by Josephus elsewhere about sects, nations or other distinct groups. Additionally, with the sole exception of Χριστιανῶν ("Christianon" - "Christians") every single word in the passage can be found elsewhere in Josephus' writings.

The weight of the evidence of the vocabulary and style of the passage is heavily towards its partial authenticity. Not only does it contain distinctive phrases of Josephus that he used in similar contexts elsewhere, but these are also phrases not found in early Christian texts. And it is significantly free of terms and phrases from the gospels, which we'd expect to find if it was created wholesale by a Christian writer. So either a very clever Christian interpolator somehow managed to immerse himself in Josephus' phrasing and language, without modern concordances and dictionaries and create a passage containing distinctively Josephean phraseology, or what we have here is a genuinely Josephean passage that has simply been added to rather clumsily.

As a result of this and other evidence (eg the Arabic and Syriac paraphrases of this passage which seem to come from a version before the clumsy additions by the interpolator) the consensus amongst scholars of all backgrounds is that the passage is partially genuine, simply added in a few obvious places. Louis H. Feldman's Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1984) surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and finds of 52 scholars on the subject, 39 considered the passage to be partially authentic.

Peter Kirby has done a survey of the literature since and found that this trend has increased in recent years. He concludes "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the (Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.3.4 passage) to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist."

The other mention of Jesus in Josephus, Antiquities XX.9.1, is much more straightforward, but much more of a problem for Jesus Mythicists. In it Josephus recounts a major political event that happened when he was a young man. This would have been a significant and memorable event for him, since he was only 25 at the time and it caused upheaval in his own social and political class, the priestly families of Jerusalem that included his own.

In 62 AD the Roman procurator of Judea, Porcius Festus, died while in office and his replacement, Lucceius Albinus, was still on his way to Judea from Rome. This left the High Priest, Hanan ben Hanan (usually called Ananus), with a freer reign than usual. Ananus executed some Jews without Roman permission and, when this was brought to the attention of the Romans, Ananus was deposed. This deposition would have been memorable for the young Josephus, who had just returned from an embassy to Rome on the behalf of the Jerusalem priests. But what makes this passage relevant is what Josephus mentions, in passing, as the cause of the political upheaval:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

This mention is peripheral to the story Josephus is telling, but since we know from Christian sources that Jesus' brother James led the Jesus sect in Jerusalem in this period and we have a separate, non-dependent, Christian account of James' execution by the Jerusalem priesthood, it is fairly clear which "Jesus who was called Messiah" Josephus is referring to here.

Almost without exception, modern scholars consider this passage genuine and an undisputed reference to Jesus as a historical figure by someone who was a contemporary of his brother and who knew of the execution of that brother first hand. This rather unequivocal reference to a historical Jesus leaves Jesus Mythicists with a thorny problem, which they generally try to solve one of two ways:

Quote:Unnecessary snark.

Actually, it wasn't a snark - I was pointing out a strawman.  If the Oz reference was too subtle for you, I apologize.
Boru

I knew we'd get the "TF is real" bullshit out of you sometime or other.  Very predictable.

Pure apologetics.  The dumbed down version does not exist anywhere....and the TF in all its glory version is a creation of Eusebius or some other liar.

(June 5, 2015 at 2:33 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The French Revolution happened.  But a Tale of Two Cities is still fiction.

Atlanta burned during the Civil War.   Gone With The Wind is still fiction.

See a pattern?

Yes.

Charles Dickens and Margaret Mitchell were fiction writers not historians. They wrote wrote historical fiction not history, and while their novels were set against a backdrop of true events, the authors never claimed that their stories were true.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the four gospels were intended to be included in the historical fiction genre of literature?