Jesus Who! (Harry Potter, myths, evidence, Krishna)

[pladecalvo]

[quote=briandean;681526]

A highly regarded scholar, named Gary Habermas, has written a book entitled "The Historical Jesus" that has shown numerous examples and recordings of Jesus outside of Christian writings.

I think Richard Carrier has done enough to destroy Haberman's 'facts' about "The Historical Jesus".

Also, Craig Blomberg's book "The Historical Reliabilty of the Gospels",

Craig Bloomberg. Prof of Divinity at Denver Seminary!

and F.F. Bruce's book "The New Testament Documents" are highly regarded. Bruce was an archaeologist by trade, so that book's pretty interesting.

FF Bruce. Bible scholar and founder of modern evangelical understanding of the bible. Also editor of the 'Evangelical Quarterly' and a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Come on dude! Your 'evidence' will need to be a little more 'unbiased'.

Other books of antiquity that give evidence of Jesus (if these haven't been mentioned already) are Tacitus' "Annals" as well as Josephus' works.

Already covered and debunked.

The latter has NOT been shown to be a Christian forgery.

Yes it is!

In fact, it doen't state Jesus' teachings, only that he lived, was arrested, and was sentenced to capital punishment. If it was a Christian forgery it would have had more of a theological position. Josephus' works compile hundreds of pages of history, only about a paragraph of which has anything whatsoever to do with the man named Jesus.

.......and how would Josephus know considering he wasn't even born until about a decade after JC was said to have died.

Often someone somewhere will claim something like "it's a forgery" without looking at what they're commenting on. No biggie, it happens.

Dude, don't delude yourself that these forgeries haven't been researched. Josephus and Tacitus have been wheeled out by Christianity for hundreds of years and their 'evidence' has been destroyed so many times that it's become a standing joke. Even theological scholars accept that the 'Testimonium Flavium' is a forgery.

Besides, all scholarship agrees that the man referred to as Jesus Christ lived. The disagreement is whether he is who he claimed to be.

All scholarship does not agree that JC lived, in fact, very few scholars agree that JC lived. There are many scholars that agree the probability that a man named Jesus existed...but Jesus Christ! Not many!

Anyway, hope the list above helps.

Not a lot but thanks anyway!

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

.......and how would Josephus know considering he wasn't even born until about a decade after JC was said to have died.!

Um, we're talking about Him 2000 years after He died and you're worried about 10 years affecting the story??? Plad, I expected more out of you!

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

All scholarship does not agree that JC lived, in fact, very few scholars agree that JC lived. There are many scholars that agree the probability that a man named Jesus existed...but Jesus Christ! Not many!

The bolded portion above is all I need from you.

Thanks.

[tarhill]

pladecalvo,
You question the bias of these and other authors but let me tell everyone including you has a bias, a non-belief can be a bias as well "dude". Let's hear you argue why their books are not true or where the problems are in their facts rather than attacking them.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by tarhill

pladecalvo,
You question the bias of these and other authors but let me tell everyone including you has a bias, a non-belief can be a bias as well "dude". Let's hear you argue why their books are not true or where the problems are in their facts rather than attacking them.

The problem with the books is that the authors are ALL CHRISTIANS. They ALL believe in the first place and have an agenda to promote what they believe.

[pladecalvo]

[quote=Alpha8207;682288]

Um, we're talking about Him 2000 years after He died and you're worried about 10 years affecting the story??? Plad, I expected more out of you!

The point I'm making Alpha is that whatever he did write would have been hearsay! He never met any JC and never saw any JC. He would have been writing things that he had heard about from Christian sources. The facts remain....there is NO contemporaneous evidence to support the story of JC.

The bolded portion above is all I need from you.

C'mon Alpha! Where have I argued differently?

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

The problem with the books is that the authors are ALL CHRISTIANS. They ALL believe in the first place and have an agenda to promote what they believe.

Plad, you will always have this issue. There's no way around it.

See, Lee Strobel, a former atheist, went on a quest to disprove facts and disprove Christ by writing a book called 'The Case For Chrsit.' Well, in his quest, he actually came to the realization that it's true! So the book started out as written by an atheist but by the end it was written by a Christian author.

When these folks realize it's true. They become believers.

Stop arguing the sources and start arguing the problem with the points the sources raise.

[wrightclan]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

The point I'm making Alpha is that whatever he did write would have been hearsay! He never met any JC and never saw any JC.

By your standard, virtually all historians would have to discounted, Christian or non.

[stretch00]

Originally Posted by Alpha8207

Stop arguing the sources and start arguing the problem with the points the sources raise.

But if the sources are invalid, then any points they raise are similarly invalid.

Lets look at Josephus for a moment, just on timeline.

He was born about 10 years after the crucifixion. But he did not start writing until he was about 40 (75ce). Therefore there is not a 10 year difference as Alpha notes, but rather a difference of closer to 45 or 50 years.

This is quite simply not contemporary. Period, end of story.

So from this point we can discuss what Josephus might have written, why he might have written it, and if there is any evidence that the manuscript was changed over the centuries.

After that, and only after that, can Josephus' writings be considered accurate, or for that matter, innacurate. The blade cuts both ways, and this could bolster either the christian or atheist viewpoint.

Any interest?

[Alpha8207]

Originally Posted by stretch00

But if the sources are invalid, then any points they raise are similarly invalid.

Lets look at Josephus for a moment, just on timeline.

He was born about 10 years after the crucifixion. But he did not start writing until he was about 40 (75ce). Therefore there is not a 10 year difference as Alpha notes, but rather a difference of closer to 45 or 50 years.

This is quite simply not contemporary. Period, end of story.

So from this point we can discuss what Josephus might have written, why he might have written it, and if there is any evidence that the manuscript was changed over the centuries.

After that, and only after that, can Josephus' writings be considered accurate, or for that matter, innacurate. The blade cuts both ways, and this could bolster either the christian or atheist viewpoint.

Any interest?

If you have a problem with folks writing about history but that weren't actually there for the events...that's fine.

Scratch everything you think you know but that you didn't actually see from your memory.

Civil war, hearsay. WWI, inaccurate. Life of George Washington, myth.

All I ask anyone to do, and I've done it MULTIPLE times although not in this thread, is approach ALL matters using the same microscope.

Let me just ask you this stretch, since this will help with the topic, do you believe that there was a man named Jesus, who upset the religious leaders of His day, and caused quite a stir among His people?

[kaykay]

This may appear to be "off topic" but please bear with me because I think it does relate to the OP aspect of "was Jesus a myth?" I would just like to ask the ones who are questioning the existence of Jesus if you have ever read the synoptic gospel accounts of Jesus in their entirety? I would submit that EVEN if there were NO extraneous writings mentioning Jesus, that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is such a compelling, "unexpected" character that it would have been difficult to "invent" such a person. Just my opinion...but I do issue that as a challenge to those who may never have actually read the gospel accounts of Jesus.