Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[DeistPaladin]

DeistPaladin, do you agree with historians when they say that there are two events subject to "almost universal assent"? These two events being the baptism of Jesus by John and Jesus' crucifixion by the order of Pontius Pilate.

That is what I was asking.

Do you agree with their conclusions regarding those two events? Yes or no? We need to come to a consensus on this.

I'm not sure why we "need" to come to consensus in order to have a discussion. If by your "need", you mean to say that you want to know my views on the subject matter, I'll be happy to further elaborate.

I need to nail down what you or others mean by "baptism of Jesus by John (the Baptist)". There are a few elements to the story as related in the Gospels:

1. That John effectively knelt before Jesus, declaring himself merely a "forerunner" and that Jesus was the awaited messiah.
I reject this assertion for many reasons.

First, the accounts of John the Baptist's ministry detailed by Josephus indicate he had a significant following and there is NO mention of John telling anyone that he's merely the warm up act. There is NO mention in Josephus that John the Baptist pointed to anyone else, let alone Jesus.

Second, the followers of John the Baptist continued to be rivals of the early Christians, apparently not getting the memo that their leader told them under no uncertain terms that Jesus was the awaited messiah. In fact, John the Baptist has followers to this very day. This behavior makes no sense if the Gospel claim that he pointed to Jesus is true.

Third, the habit of incorporating and assimilating religious icons of rival religions is a fairly common practice. Muslims would later do this with Jesus, claiming that he told everyone he was a forerunner of Muhammad yet somehow Christians strangely refused to listen. When you understand why you reject Islamic claims about Jesus, you understand why I'm equally skeptical of Christian claims about John the Baptist.

Fourth, the put down of John the Baptist escalated notably with each successive Gospel account. In Mark, he declared himself to be just a forerunner. In Matthew, he at first refused to baptize Jesus as it was not his place but did so when ordered to by Jesus. In John, he never baptizes Jesus at all. This is exactly what we'd expect to see if the whole story was just religious propaganda to incorporate John the Baptist and thereby assimilate his followers.

2. That there was a booming voice from above, The Holy Spirit descended from on high, yatta yatta.
I reject these supernatural claims.

3. That John the Baptist may or may not have baptized Jesus along with many others.
OK. It may be so. I can't prove it didn't happen. What evidence is there that it did happen?

So you see, there is no "yes or no" on this question. You're asking complex questions about ancient history, our understanding of which with regard to Jesus is muddled by folklore and mythology.

And the other part of your claim is that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. Here you have some ground to stand on with what I consider the strongest piece of evidence that there is some sort of man behind the myths:

This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius.

There are a few reasons I have to be skeptical but I'm willing to let all that go for now. This is a 2nd century and oblique reference to Jesus, so much that it doesn't even mention him by name. "Christus" means "the anointed one" or "the Messiah".

For now, for the purpose of our discussion, I'm willing to accept that Jesus was crucified by Pilate.

Are you ready to debate something now?

[Minimalist]

Why are historical scholars so reluctant to admit what obviously can't be reconciled with a basic reading of scripture?

Don't overlook the obvious, D-P. There are NO first century sources. It is like trying to look for references to Alexander the Great in the 5th century BC...you won't find him. They thus have a vested interest in pretending that this gospel horseshit is "history" because they need it to give themselves something to do.

There is one original story of this jesus guy. What is now known as 'mark.' The rest of them are embellishments or re-writes written for different audiences. Mark has little to say about history. He names Pilate which gives a ten year placement in time. It correctly notes that the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. He doesn't mention any birth-story...something left to the later expansionists matthew and luke to provide for the dolts. Mainly it is a lot of healings and pious blather about the kingdom of fucking 'god.'

However, I do lose patience with people like Reza Aslan and even Ehrman when they start trying to comb through the story looking to pick out bits and pieces for their particular visions of what this 'historical jesus' would have been. It is the classic sharpshooter fallacy. They pick out what they want and paint a bulls-eye around it - ignoring everything else. Would you read The Wizard of Oz and make an argument that Dorothy did not go to Oz? She really went to Wichita and was giving blowjobs to soldiers and then took a bus home? Sure, that is probably a more realistic story of a teenage runaway but it is not what the story says.

Mark claims his boy was the "son of god" who ran around doing miracles. This is what the story says even if it is nothing but superstitious bullshit. But it isn't history.

[DeistPaladin]

I'm calling it now, everyone, Dis will completely brush aside all my arguments, ignore all the evidence, ignore his own scripture, play the "scholars don't agree with you" card, declare victory and walk away.

In 3... 2...

[DeistPaladin]

Would you read The Wizard of Oz and make an argument that Dorothy did not go to Oz? She really went to Wichita and was giving blowjobs to soldiers and then took a bus home? Sure, that is probably a more realistic story of a teenage runaway but it is not what the story says.

How about we tell the story of "The Historical Clark Kent".

He was discovered as a foundling by a childless rural couple who raised him on a farm in some small town somewhere in the Great Plains of America. He moved to some larger city where he became a reporter for a newspaper of some kind. In his capacity as a reporter, he was known as a classic muckraker, diligently hounding corrupt politicians and exposing criminal behavior.

At one point, he does an expose on a pharmaceutical company owned by one Lex Luther, who was pushing a worthless or even dangerous weight loss drug onto what would have been an unsuspecting public. This reporter, Kent, became famous as a crime fighter in that capacity. In later years, his fame leads him to work directly with the police in McGruff style public service ads informing the public of how to keep an eye out for crime, etc.

He settles down with fellow reporter Lois Lane and is remembered by all as "a really super man".

Ta da!

Of course, my fan fic bears almost no resemblance to the details of the classic comic, names notwithstanding. The story IS about the super powers. But hey, you're right that it gives Ehrman something to write about.

[max-greece]

Why are historical scholars so reluctant to admit what obviously can't be reconciled with a basic reading of scripture?

Don't overlook the obvious, D-P. There are NO first century sources. It is like trying to look for references to Alexander the Great in the 5th century BC...you won't find him. They thus have a vested interest in pretending that this gospel horseshit is "history" because they need it to give themselves something to do.

There is one original story of this jesus guy. What is now known as 'mark.' The rest of them are embellishments or re-writes written for different audiences. Mark has little to say about history. He names Pilate which gives a ten year placement in time. It correctly notes that the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. He doesn't mention any birth-story...something left to the later expansionists matthew and luke to provide for the dolts. Mainly it is a lot of healings and pious blather about the kingdom of fucking 'god.'

However, I do lose patience with people like Reza Aslan and even Ehrman when they start trying to comb through the story looking to pick out bits and pieces for their particular visions of what this 'historical jesus' would have been. It is the classic sharpshooter fallacy. They pick out what they want and paint a bulls-eye around it - ignoring everything else. Would you read The Wizard of Oz and make an argument that Dorothy did not go to Oz? She really went to Wichita and was giving blowjobs to soldiers and then took a bus home? Sure, that is probably a more realistic story of a teenage runaway but it is not what the story says.

Mark claims his boy was the "son of god" who ran around doing miracles. This is what the story says even if it is nothing but superstitious bullshit. But it isn't history.

Mark is also an entirely Jewish story. No mention of Jesus coming to save everyone (in fact the opposite - just the Jews). Its only in the bolted on bits after Verse 8 in the last chapter that we get the "spread the word" message.

Also - no explanation as to why Jesus suddenly changed his mind in those last, bolted on, verses.

If he existed, and I'll happily accept he did for now, he was one of many wannabe false Jewish Messiah's. He's not even considered one of the more credible ones by Jews.

[truthBtold]

discipulus is currently unavailable. ... he is licking his wounds...

[Minimalist]

Mark is also an entirely Jewish story. No mention of Jesus coming to save everyone (in fact the opposite - just the Jews). Its only in the bolted on bits after Verse 8 in the last chapter that we get the "spread the word" message.

Those scholars that our new-found troll seems to be so fond of, do not agree.

Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

The author wrote in Greek for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians, probably in Rome (Mark uses a number of Latin terms), although Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city on the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have all been offered as alternatives.[8] He may have been influenced by Greco-Roman biographies and rhetorical forms, popular novels and romances, and the Homeric epics; nevertheless, he mentions almost no public figures, makes no allusions to Greek or Roman literature, and takes all his references from the Jewish scriptures, mostly in their Greek versions.[9] Adela Yarbro Collins, Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School, has argued that the author intended to write history, but not in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

[max-greece]

To be honest Min I was just reading it - it reads like a Jewish story (so does most of Matthew). I never ventured into its origins, who Mark was and all that - I just read it.

Shocked the shit out of me to be honest. There's only one non-Jew in the whole thing mentioned specifically (but not by name) and Jesus comes out of that one looking a bit of a cunt to be honest.

I can honestly say it was the last thing I was expecting. I just wanted the story as its not a religion I was brought up in and the little I knew was from TV, movies, Christian friends and cultural icons.

Took me a long time to come to terms with what I read - now I just put it down to the inherent schizophrenia enforced on Christians by the conflicts in their own religion.

[Minimalist]

The book was probably written c.66-70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution

Consider that line from the article, Max.

Here is the problem with this line of thinking. The only reference to such a persecution comes from Tacitus and no other writer - pagan or xtian until the 5th century - knows anything about a) Tacitus' alleged comment or b) Nero's supposed "persecution" of xtians.

However, there was war in Judaea in 135 AD as well as persecution of Jews involved in the crushing of the bar Kochba revolt. So there is a bit of a Rohrschact test going on here with these supposed xtian scholars who see what they wish to see and bend the facts to fit their deeply held desires.

[DeistPaladin]

I can honestly say it was the last thing I was expecting. I just wanted the story as its not a religion I was brought up in and the little I knew was from TV, movies, Christian friends and cultural icons.

Took me a long time to come to terms with what I read - now I just put it down to the inherent schizophrenia enforced on Christians by the conflicts in their own religion.

It was a struggle for me at first as well. Prior to my research, I had kind of a "The Road to El Dorado" view of Jesus, with him playing the soft-hearted Miguel who attempts to create a more gentle religion from the austere god of the OT. It took a conscious effort for me to rip off the rose-colored glasses and view the Gospel character with a critical eye.

We're so indoctrinated in our society, even those raised by atheists as I was, to see Jesus as the yardstick by which moral teaching may be measured. There were some obvious good parts, such as "do unto others" but most of it was simply terrible, even for the more primitive and barbaric time.

Jesus' moral teachings were good and original. Unfortunately, what was good wasn't original and what was original wasn't good.