The newly-publicized gospels of Thomas and Judas once again show a differing mindset between Atheists and theists. An Atheist sees this as new evidence — stuff to be considered, like a new piece of scientific data – about how the bible was formed and assembled two millenia ago. Christians are quick to launch press releases stating that nothing, including hard evidence, would ever change their mind about their mythos.I haven’t read the Gospel of Judas (or the available parts) yet, but I really liked the Gospel of Thomas – probably because it completely lacks religion.
Goose:
Well, there’s the religious investment for 1. Rhodes is actually a decent fella, but I had a run-in w/him, he attributes internal martial arts w/occultic practices. Holding? Holding is a phallacymaster who makes Phreddy look like a kindergartener. Ad hominem is his specialty. & he gives xtians special dispensation for ad hominem.
But they aren’t trustworthy. Haven’t you been listening?
Well, the contradictions are in the writings themselves. The Talmud was heavily censored by the patricists. Plus the habit of burning anything contradicting the popular view.
You have no proof of that whatsoever.
That’s crap, pure & simple. The Romans were running the show. They decided, as a rule, who was going to ‘get it’.
Hey, try preaching anything in the ME, that contradicts the popular view.
Oy gevalt! You’re giving me a headache. You’re dismissing all ‘counterclaims’ as ‘possibilities’ now?
With enough editing, anything can fit the bill.
Desperate? What? I’m just presenting the evidence. Such as it is.
Not what I meant.
Oy vey!
No explanation why Origen didn’t mention this bloody thing centuries before Eusebius?
Here:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Josephus+on+Jesus&curtab=2222_1&linktext=highly%20disputed%20reference
“Modern consensus
(snip)
Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.“
End of that paragraph:
(snip)
“It seems clear that, whatever the current fashion of scholarship, no conclusive evidence exists to allow a final closure of this question.”
As to the reference to James:
(snip)
“Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that Josephus, a first century Jew, could have called another man the Messiah. “Christ”, from the Greek Χριστος or Khristos, and “Messiah”, from the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ or Ma??aḥ both literally mean “anointed”. If one assumes that “who was called Christ” is original to Josephus, there are two possible explanations: that Josephus was merely reporting the title ascribed to Jesus, or that he really did believe that Jesus was the Messiah. The former is a remote possibility, though it is most unlikely that Josephus would use such a title without accompanying it with editorializing on the blasphemy such a title would represent to him. The latter can be ruled out, as detailed above, because it would contradict Origen’s repeated admissions that Josephus did not believe in nor accept Jesus as the Christ.
It is worth noting that both “Jesus” and “James” were popular names in first-century Judea. There are at least five characters named “James” in the New Testament. Josephus mentions at least nineteen people named “Jesus,” a number of them living in the first third of the first century.
Also, just as it is customary to refer to people today by their first and last names, it was customary then to refer to a man by his one-and-only name and his father’s name. While “the son of” sounds awkward in English, the original Greek is not so stilted, using a formula similar to that found in Gaelic languages with “Mac.” “Jesus who was called Christ” is “Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ” (“I?sou tou legomenou Christou”), and “Jesus the son of Damneus” is “Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Δαμναίου” (“I?soun ton tou Damnaiou”).”
So, until the the matter is fully settled, not really.
reluctant
That has nothing to do with his views on the internal consistency of the biblical documents, has it?
That isn’t a personal opinion, it is a fact.
Well, that depends on what qualifies as a contradiction doesn’t it? I call the news-example from earlier.
Chances are we would’ve found something, at least references, to counterclaims had there been some.
Of course no proof. Historical documents suggest. What more do i need? Why should i assume that they are not correct?!?
No, Jesus was such a heretic to Judaism that they had him killed. On jewish initiative. Is it then suddenly a friendly environment to be preaching in? Let’s look at this objectively now.
Without trying to poison the well, what do you reckon?
Since nothing fits the bill more that the gospel, yes. The “counterclaims” you mention are possible on individual basis perhaps but they can’t be used to explain what really happened in a coherent manner. As i see it, maybe i haven’t connected the dots then… pls help me
Evidence suggest not much editing has taken place.
Well, depends on which source one uses.
Josephus wasn’t a christian, that is why he refers to Jesus as “the one called christ”
Is it probable that Josephus, being a serious historian, wouldn’t verify what he wrote before writing it?
Goose:
I’d hazard a yes, but anyone who labels Tai Chi (or any other internal MA) an occultic practice, has his head up his ass. Because I do TC, & have practiced other internal MA. So I know this from personal experience.
What is a fact, exactly? If you’re talking smack about my art, you’re headed for a SERIOUS berating.
& I call the internal contradictions found in the book itself to the witness stand.
Well, you proposed censorship of the events in an earlier thread, when taken to task about the argument from silence. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I say the counterclaims you’re so avid for have been wiped out from all historical record.
Again, I repeat myself: NO EXTERNAL MULTIPLE ATTESTATION.
Well, I STILL say your ‘messiah’ was a conglomeration, an amalgram of multi-jesii, mix ‘n match. It’s what people do best.
Oh, come on now. You’re a grown man. I’ve given you ample info. Try to sort it out. Please.
Aye caramba! Even w/all the pseudipigrapha, the myriad forgeries run rampant, you still believe that? They settled on a standard at Nicene.
You’re kidding, right? That’s from Wikipedia, 1 of the most objective sources on the web.
8 |. Not paying attention, I see. Jury’s still out on Josephus’ interpolated paragraph. For all we know, Eusebius tossed that in too. Still not answering the query about Origen vs. Celsus, I see.
It’s possible. Do you know how ole Joey would go about doing that? I mean, do you have any idea what a historian does at all? He’d not go on hearsay: he’d interview witnesses, right? He wrote the Testimonium around 62 CE. So, someone of such enormous popularity, w/so many followers, well, someone like that would warrant more than a few brief paragraphs, right? & documentation. Flavius was a Jew 1st, Roman 2nd (or the other way around?). Someone who (as YOU claim) had such multitudes, supposedly performed miracles, wouldn’t that merit an entire chapter? Maybe 2? Instead of a couple of paragraphs buried deep in a list. He gave a long list of Herod’s (whom he disliked) deeds, wouldn’t Herod have been overshadowed by JC?
& why didn’t Joey mention the ‘darkness that covered the land’? Or the ‘saints’ that came marching in? Or the rent veil? Or the ‘slaughter of the innocents’? Come to think of it, if Joey was the premier historian that you give so much credit to, why aren’t all of the deeds of JC listed? Or a partial list? Why only a brief mention? What happened to the rest of the family, for that matter? Mary & Joseph get passing mention in the Palistinean ministry, & then utter silence. Just a brief mention of James (who was a big leader for a time, in accordance w/your book). Where’d they all go?
Here: do me a big favor. Sit down & SERIOUSLY ponder these questions. Give it 24 hours before responding. I can wait.
Cheers.
Reluctant
Still, he might be right about the NT consistency
Fact that the NT manuscripts have hig internal accuracy.
I don’t know about your art, does it involve the supernatural?
What? censorship regarding what?!?
And all sources referring to those counterclaims also… cleanseds out perfectly. I don’t know about you, but i find it a little improbable.
After all, all these gnostic documents have survived.
Then i say – the fact that you discard all external attestation that mentions Jesus one way or another is a big leap of faith. So much written about a guy that didn’t exist? I am sorry, it doesn’t make sense.
I still say that i find i improbable that a bunch of jews who already had a right standing with God suddenly moved away from their faith and started preaching a gospel that would get them in trouble, some even killed. Right in the middle of Jewish heartland, the worst place to be at the time.
I find it hard to swallow that they thought they’d get to heaven for preaching something they made up the night before.
If the Jesus that they claimed to have seen never existed then the easiest thing to do for the enraged scribes was to say that he never existed and the case would be closed.
So..? Pehaps it was a good time to officially sort out the gnostics.
A majority seems to accept the non-interpolated version of the testamonium… I saw that origen didn’t mention the TF bt the part about James.
I don’t answer the query because i kno nothing about it.
I’ll answer now.
What comes to mind is this: “Joey” wasn’t a christian. Would he start mentioning what you suggest above he would basically be writing a gospel.
A non-christian can’t do that, he has to deny the miracles&resurrection of Jesus.
Josephus apparently interviewed non-christians, since the TF does not say that Christ is risen which would be the 1st thing to say for a christian. And if he used non-christians as sources then it’s no wonder that neither miracles nor resurrection is mentioned.
About the other things, well since i don’t know why he doesn’t mention it, there could be a 1000 reasons ragning from the probable to the absurd but sill possible.
Point is, the fact that these things aren’t mentioned doesn’t make the TF nor the passage mentioning James go away. They are still there and can be put on the list of external attestations of Jesus whether we accept it or not.
Goose:
I don’t waste time looking at apologists these days. It’s mostly the same old tired chestnuts.
Not really. & they have little real external accuracy.
Not the way I teach it. Or the way I learned it. Primarily holistic in nature.
The lack of external…oh hell, you should know what I mean by now.
Oh, horse puckey. The early patricists made a HUGE effort to destroy conflicting POV’s. Iraeneus & Hippolytus, in re: Simon Magus springs to mind.
Do you accept any of those? No. The only reason the Nag Hammadi survived is that they were BURIED IN A CLAY JAR.
& I say the way you embrace them is…well, naive, to say the least. You measure such extravagant claims by examining them w/a microscope, seeing if they w/stand the litmus test of logic. No 1st CE testimony. Your ‘external attestation that mentions Jesus one way or another’ are just anecdotal hearsay.
A bunch? What constitutes a bunch? JC’s merry men? Gimmee a break. ‘Some even killed’? Who? There’s no historical proof of that, even.
Well, DUH! It was something that grew, from surrounding mythologies in the area. Like a tiny snowball rolling down a mountain, picking up mass. I never said it was an ‘overnight’ sensation, did I? Oral tradition is wide open to embellishment.
Same old tired argument. Which enraged scribes? It was a TINY cult. 1 among many.
Your faith in the accuracy of your fellowmen is…adorable.
No, incorrect on all counts. Origen didn’t mention the TF part about JC. Jury is STILL out on the non-interpolation.
Then go do some research on it. That is, if you ARE actually being objective about the whole thing.
That tells me volumes. You won’t listen, you won’t sit down & consider it. What, your faith is so fragile, you can’t give it a full day to actually ponder it?
True. But still: just a passing mention? Joey talks at length about Herod. Why not JC? It’s a good question, obviously 1 that has you squirming.
But no mention of it either way? Doesn’t that give you some pause?
Oh, so that’s how it is. Not mentioned=non-xtian. Do you see how sad a point that is? SOMEBODY would’ve mentioned it, no? Somebody, say, in the 1st CE? Which non-xtian historian mentions the resurrection? The saints? The darkness? Nobody? Who?
& don’t you owe it to yourself to find out? Or at least form some sort of conclusion? Isn’t that what you tried to pin me down on before? Certainly, you have enough to form an opinion? Have you read the TF, or just the sections you use to bolster your argument?
What list? You don’t have a real list. You have a bunch of sources that are notoriously a century or more older than the event. I’m not trying to make anything ‘go away’.
Thus far, all you’ve done is repeat, repeat, repeat, which is the argument ad infinitum. Coupled w/an appeal to antiquity, an appeal to wonder, special pleading, fallacy of composition, oh hell, I could go on.
I can pretty much tell you’ve done nothing else but lean on others for your opinions.
Reluctant
Then what is the internal accuracy?
Did I suggest that? When?!?!
Didi i suggest that?!? sometimes i don’t really follow
Not a single document referring to them even? Not even an oral tradition?!? Sorry, the silence is just too loud
The gnostic gospels have been known by jews and christians all along. Nobody has ever heard of contradicting documents (that i’ve heard of anyway)
Aren’t many of the historians that mention Jesus directly/indirectly serious historians? Then their accounts should be taken seriously, at least given the benefit of the doubt. Moreover they were all hostile to christianity.
Persecution of christians in 1st century? Or didn’t it happen?
Of course i can’t prove it. Historic documents indicate persecutions.
Hindus, Buddhists, Masons are building their temples in Jerusalem. But try preaching the gospel…
Would that be enough to start preaching a highly explosive message about a person?
Jewish oral tradition up to this day is that Jesus was a mere man and not our Messiah. Not that he was a myth put together by different traditions.
Doesn’t history indicate that it had grown to several thousand within 6 months from “the day that they decided to start spreading the mix of oral traditions”? And it reached rome in the 60′s?
If christianity is false they have no reason whatsoever to try to maintain it. They are too interested in the truth.
That’s what i am saying
I certainly would consider it and ponder deeply if there was a good case against christianity. I’ve no interest in believing in something that probably is false.
So far, there is no clear case. We have discrediting of all sources and subjective demands about more info needed from the historic texts otherwise they can’t be accepted.
Nad i have the feeling that no matter how good the non-biblical attestations would be they wouldn’t be good enough for an atheist.
There are always holes to be found if one presupposes that the supernatural cannot happen and then sets out to make up his mind about the gospels.
Ok, here is a theory. Josephus was documenting the Jewish history for the romans. Since he was a jew he was hostile to christianity but still, trying to be as objective as possible, he had to mention Jesus.
As he was hostile to christianity he had a natural aversion towards mentioning resurrection&miracles as this is a form of evangelization
Since he was right about other facts mentioned in the gospels, why should Jesus be an exception?
Goose:
Not much.
I’m saying that. & it’s not a suggestion.
Multiple external attestations.
That’s what I’m saying too. Problem is, you see silence as assent, when it is no such thing.
Really? Known all along? Which ones? Got link?
There’s a big difference between an offhand mention & actual chronicling. Apparently you don’t make the distinction. Directly? Who? No one outside of Josephus, & that’s a weak link at best.
Not as much as you’ve been told. Or for the same reasons you claim.
Okay, gimmee a NON-biblical reference in re: to that.
Masons? Name a buddhist temple in Jerusalem, please. Or a hindi. Argument from martyrdom.
Sure. Which person? Theudas, Benjamin the Egyptian, Yeshuda, Jesus of Damneus, Jesus Barabbas?
& the written tradition says what?
No. I don’t know where you’re pulling that crap from. You admitted earlier, that you had no proof on this. Now you do?
You could say the same thing about Charlie Manson and the Mansonites.
That’s NOT what you said. Go re-read your post.
It IS a good case. You just won’t review the evidence.
Which is the way it should be approached. You’re a fine 1 to talk about ‘discrediting’, BTW. I’d say your demands are far more subjective than mine.
Hey, I’m NOT the 1 investing heavily on little evidence. YOU ARE. All you have is circumstantial, hearsay, anectdotal, I mean, none of this stuff would hold up in a court of law. I want MORE evidence. Something solid.
Well, if you can’t prove the supernatural, why should I believe in it? Sad, sad argument.
Why not the darkness covering the land, then? People were said to RISE FROM THEIR GRAVES. That’d warrant more than a mention. The rending of the veil would be mentioned, SOMEWHERE, wouldn’t it?
You’re right. I am hung up on these. Why? IT MAKES NO SENSE THAT IT WASN’T MENTIONED. Anywhere outside of Matthew.
Yes, but he was also a Jew.
Waitaminnit: WHAT other facts? You need to stop changing your stance. Josephus doesn’t mention ANYTHING from the ‘gospels’. He mentions John the Baptist more than he mentions JC, anyways. & JB was an Essene.
Just be honest. You have very little to go on.
Reluctant
Yes, but what is it?
They were up for trial in Nicea right? They’ve been around for almost as long as the orthodox gospels then, give or take 100 years.
But nothing similar that claims Jesus was a myth…
No reason to treat it as unfounded hearsay as the historian is a serious one, right? After all we have serious historians. If they too were insecure about the trustworthiness they could’ve written “there were rumours of a man called Jesus” or smth. But as i see it, it is presented as fact.
Apparently, poisoning the well is the most used weapon by atheists. Since they hav no sources of their own.
Pliny, Tacitus etc.
Actually i can’t. One of my collegues spent some time in Jerusalem and told me… i admit that it’s not an official source.
Yeah, that was a crap argument, i admit it.
Read the gospel and decide which person its about. Objectively.
Nothing. That would require some sort of alternative explanation and it seems there was none.
Of course i have no proof. I say history indicates. Why should i assume the opposite of what history indicates?!?
I assume acts is a total facbrication that can’t be trusted?
What case? I gather poisoning of the well, and presuppositions that everything that can’t be proven must be false. Further it seems that if every detail doesn’t add up it must be totally false. I don’t know but i can’t go about judging documents this way, i would have trouble reading the newspaper then.
I don’t have any demands. I just take whatever info we have and to me it seems very likely that Jesus existed. We have access to more info about him than most people from the time. Should we then assume he didn’t exist? Isn’t that a little backwards?
I repeat. We have tons of evidence about Jesus compared to other historical people of the time.
we have no source that positively makes counterclaims, the counterclaims we supposedly have are found within the claims themselves.
Ok, here is a theory. Josephus was documenting the Jewish history for the romans. Since he was a jew he was hostile to christianity but still, trying to be as objective as possible, he had to mention Jesus.
Well if people rise from their graves you are giving credit to Jesus’ claims. The rending of the veil means that sin has no power anymore, which gives credit to Jesus’ claims. This would make it into a mini-gospel.
I am not changing any stance at all.
Other facts (besides the Baptist):
Herod, Pilate, James, Ananias
Goose:
We’ve discussed that at length elsewhere.
The Gnostic gospels? I rather doubt it. Don’t forget, Tertullian claimed the ‘Acts of Nicodemus’ as legitimate.
There weren’t all that many folks back then claiming ANYTHING was a myth. Oh wait. Celsus.
Really? Do you even know anything about historiography?
“Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. The term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua”
Weapon? This isn’t a battle. This is a discussion. Your evidence is a loosely knit patchwork of 2nd hand sources. What, I can’t say that?
You still playing that tune? Some brief references don’t cut it. We’ve been over this a 100 times. Pliny the ELDER never mentioned JC. Pliny the YOUNGER only wrote to Trajan, asking what to do about the xtians. The brief mention in Tacitus isn’t enough. Seneca never mentions 1 thing. Or Judaeus. Or Justus. 1st CE ONLY.
No big deal, just curious.
Your honesty (in this) is duly noted.
Garrh! I DID THAT ALREADY! A long time ago. I used to think the same thing you did.
OR: there was no alternative explanation, because it didn’t happen.
‘History indicates’? What, it either says it happened, or it didn’t.
Yep.
Oh, here we go again, w/that stupid newspaper analogy. Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? & no, not EVERYTHING that can’t be proven is false. But supernatural claims? I’m going to assume they are, until proven otherwise.
More info? I feel an appeal to ridicule coming on. We most emphatically DO NOT have more info than on anyone else. How can you say something like that? That’s just…stupid, sorry. If WE DID, WE WOULDN’T EVEN BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.
& I repeat: NO WE DON’T. Another crap argument, no foundation at all.
Re-read that sentence. There are no counterclaims, ’cause it DIDN’T happen. I have no counterclaims that Heracles didn’t exist, should I then believe that?
I AM NOT. Stop putting words into my mouth. I ask a question, a good 1, you tell me the question is an admission? You know, I can tell it’s falling apart for you. You’re making ridiculous assumptions at this point. What mini-gospel? There is none.
Bullshit. 1st you say Josephus is hostile, then you say he’s right about other facts. Which is it?
So there’s the occasional name-dropping. The authors could’ve borrowed from Josephus, for all you know. The childhood JC story is terribly similar to Josephus’.
You still have buppkiss. Nada. Zilch.
I read ‘Lies my teacher told me’. I’ve found out that there are a LOT of lies in the history of my country. And that’s just in the last 200 yrs.
“History is written by the victors.” – Winston Churchill.
Reluctant
Still, gnostic/alternative christianity is well known. Theories saying Jesus didn’t exist would logically be known also.
Do i need to? I know about probabilities though.
Do you read my posts at all? I said these historians mention the christians, not Jesus, therefore we can make qualified guesses about the spread of christianity&persecution.
So the jews just let the message be spread&written down without doing anything? Their jewish heritage was at stake. Jews converted.
This is unique for christianity. No other “cult” made claims that the age of the law was over.
Jews today protect themselves by saying Jesus was a mere man.
Can’t disagree with that.
Why make it up?
So if people make eyewitness reports about natural things, you accept inconsistencies.
When they make claims about supernatural things, you expect perfection.
Why would human behaviour be different in the other case?
I didn’t say more info than anyone else. I said many
Either my english is very, very bad or you deliberately misinterpret me.
IF JOSEPHUS would report about the veil he would say that the path is now open to the father, just as Jesus said it would be.
IF JOSEPHUS would say that people rose from the grave he would give supernatural credential to Jesus.
IN FACT the moment he would report supernatural activity around Jesus he would basically be producing a mini-gospel.
Being a serious historian that did not believe Jesus was christ perhaps the non-interpolated TF was the best he could produce.
I am not saying YOU admit to anything.
Oh my. Hostile to Jesus yes, neutral to secular circumstances surrounding him.
Sure why not. Why should i believe that though?
Goose:
There were also multiple theories that JC didn’t have a body (Docetism), Adoptionism (adopted, not born as godhead), there’s even a theory that the bible was written by Lucifer himself.
Do you really? I dunno about that. Probability of resurrection = ZERO.
I’ll have to re-read them then. I get kinda a little off track myself. My impression was that you use these as authoritive proof.
Again, no proof.
& you know this how?
Or that he didn’t exist.
Oh my.
Why not? People get desperate, when they’re heavily invested in anything.
Some, not all.
No, I expect SOME consistency.
It wouldn’t.
& I quote: “I repeat. We have tons of evidence about Jesus compared to other historical people of the time.” endquote.
& I quote: “Well if people rise from their graves you are giving credit to Jesus’ claims. ” endquote.
I
But he didn’t.
But he didn’t.
But he didn’t.
Perhaps. Idle speculation. Opinion.
Sorry. It sounded that way.
Strangely enough, no historians of the 1st CE recount anything supernatural whatsoever. Unless I missed something.
Maybe you should read Josephus in his entirety, before you go any further w/this? You may just be cherry-picking your data. Just a thought.
“read the gospel” What for? It is a historical document in as much as it exists, but no more. It is not a historical document in the sense of giving any historical information.
The Iliad and The Odessey give more historical information than the gospel does.
Reluctant
But none saying he didn’t exist. Which would be the obvious one then.
Well, evidence suggest. None that suggest otherwise. What do you propose we should assume?
I assume so since i’ve never heard about another cult making the same claims.
Oral tradition seems to be that he was a mere man, a false messiah.
Why would they get desperate? Why not just leave it? There’s no point in pursuing smth that probably is false
Then why do you have different criteria for the eyewitness reports?
My mistake. I meant many
i meant “you” as in the impersonal “one”
My point exactly
Which is what you asked for
Goose:
Why would anyone do that? I call graphocentrism on that 1. Wait: what about Celsus?
Didn’t exist. You don’t have any REAL evidence.
No, because they got squelched. Burnt.
Oral tradition? If it ain’t written down, it’s hearsay. It’s that simple.
It’s statements like that that make me wonder how old you are. Tell it to the Jones folks. Or the Haley Bopp people.
Here, I’ll say it slowly, & loudly: WHAT…EYEWITNESSES? Gimmee a list of the ’500′, or let this go. You still got buppkiss.
Be a little more careful.
I can forgive that.
Here. I’m not going to answer any more of your posts, UNITL YOU READ THE TESTIMONIUM FLAUVIUM. & I mean the entire damn thing. I think you need to get a fresher perspective, instead of cherry-picking your data.