Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. This is what it comes down to in the end. Yes. The evidence for a historical Jesus is good.
Quote:
The 'Historical' Jesus was done pages ago. But the elephant in the room really is 'Historical Gospels'. That is the Real question being asked. And it is a different question altogether.
(1) a Real Jesus the gospel writers didn't much like. A Galilean - so they had to wangle a Bethlehem birth. Killed by the Romans - so they had to rewrite the story to blame the Jews. Dead, so they had to invent contradictory stories to have him get up and walk.
Yes I also agree the evidence supports the existence of Jesus. As far as the historical Gospels...
It depends on how one views the historicity of the Gospels. Some would view the Gospels through a modern day lens and the expectation is those early writers were writing objective history. However, most scholars tell us that the authors of the Gospels were writing in an ancient literary form. The Gospels were written more as biographies intended to be factual history but written in a way to drive certain points home. For example we have John who is writing his portion of the Gospels so that we may believe (John 20:31) and Luke who tells us he's collecting eyewitness accounts to make an orderly report (Luke 1:1-4). In sum, some find it difficult to accept history with interpretation but that was the ancient literary form of the day. For a good many the prime interest is in the message rather than in the seeming contradictions. And the Gospels have provided scholars with a good idea about Jesus: what he believed, what he taught, who he hung out with, what made him standout, what was necessary for those who put faith in him to gain entry to God's Kingdom, etc. Plenty for sincere Christians to appreciate and follow his footsteps.
only very literal people need a jesus not to have existed at this point. Jesus being real or not is small potatoes. To write pages on it is kind of funny.
But the real question is why do people have to have a literal death and literal resurrection?
What would drive a person to base a set of beliefs on a claim that so blatantly counters observations?
Well at least you call it evidence. Raf does not believe anything we have put out is evidence at all. Which backs up my claim that some atheist no matter what evidence is given will just disregard the evidence.
I don't know what you and Raffs are disagreeing about, other than what seems to be whether Tacitus is valid evidence or not. I know in the early atheist days, we mocked at the claims of 'extra -Biblical evidence for Jesus' and indeed when we looked into Phlegon, Thallia and Pliny it was nothing. Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus was arguable, and you are now familiar with the arguments.
But a historical Jesus was really a minority view and the claims that the whole Gospel story was based on Osiris, Mithras and Tammuz and Paul's letters were faked by Marcion seemed far - fetched. True, there do seem to be those elements in there. Various resurrected gods fed into the resurrection idea, Isis and Horus contributing to the Madonna and child Icon and the Matthew nativity seems uncannily like the birth story of Mithras.
But like the Shekel - eating fish, these are just add -on incidentals that don't in themselves debunk a real Jesus, just as the debunking of Nativity, Resurrection and the Jews dunnit claim doesn't mean there wasn't a real Jesus.
In fact, it isn't about the 'Real' Jesus at all. It is about the credibility of the Gospel Jesus. And that is something that ...well as you say: 'some atheists'. I may say I have been gravely disappointed in the irrationality of some. I may mention a very erudite Jesus debunker I rather admired and I tried to discuss my ideas with him.
I was dismayed to find that he wasn't even listening. He just dismissed it and when I pointed out he hadn't even addressed the points, he called me a liar. Yep. Some atheists.
That makes no difference to the argument. Just like 'they say there is no God'. Even if they do (aside what they actually mean by that) the rationale for atheism is not affected by any mistaken or immoderate remarks this or that atheist may make.. The argument stands on its own merits, not by how many asshats you can find wearing that particular hat. And the same goes for Christians. Someone putting up a bunkum case only means his particular argument in bunk. If a decent case is put up, I respect that, even if I may not buy it. But it's the case itself that matters. Which is sometimes why I'll work out the other person's case for them. Because getting at the truth is what matters, not just winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
Yes I also agree the evidence supports the existence of Jesus. As far as the historical Gospels...
It depends on how one views the historicity of the Gospels. Some would view the Gospels through a modern day lens and the expectation is those early writers were writing objective history. However, most scholars tell us that the authors of the Gospels were writing in an ancient literary form. The Gospels were written more as biographies intended to be factual history but written in a way to drive certain points home. For example we have John who is writing his portion of the Gospels so that we may believe (John 20:31) and Luke who tells us he's collecting eyewitness accounts to make an orderly report (Luke 1:1-4). In sum, some find it difficult to accept history with interpretation but that was the ancient literary form of the day. For a good many the prime interest is in the message rather than in the seeming contradictions. And the Gospels have provided scholars with a good idea about Jesus: what he believed, what he taught, who he hung out with, what made him standout, what was necessary for those who put faith in him to gain entry to God's Kingdom, etc. Plenty for sincere Christians to appreciate and follow his footsteps.
I think if you dig into those claims - apart from that house which does seem to be of early 1st c date - there is nothing that suggests a town or even decent sized village in Jesus' time. I looked up a lot of these claims and it seemed that these features dated to either earlier of later but it was presented as contemporary with Jesus. I gather that the terraces were at least worked in Jesus' time and perhaps some of the farm -features can be dated to a farm at that time. Which is why I say - one farm, not a town. You don't have farms where towns ought to be.
Since it's on topic, I don't at all mind a 'Nazareth in Jesus' time?' thread. I may also mention that even if there was a Bethlehem - of- Judea in Jesus' time (archaeology seems to suggest that it was abandoned in the early 1st c) Jesus still was not born there, if one really looks at the Nativity stories.
I may mention to be going on with that I spent a long time wrestling with the idea of 'The Nazorene' meaning belonging to the society of the Nazorenes, perhaps those who had taken a Nazirite vow. But the counter was that all the gospels refer to Jesus of Nazareth. I am now inclining to the view that Jesus did indeed come from Nazareth, but the 'area' of Nazareth ('Gen-Nesaret' -see Matthew 14.35...I would have used Mark 6.5, but he gets his geography confused) derived perhaps from the old 'Kinnereth'.
As I recall. It seems from some Online browsing that post Jewish war, some Jews under the leadership of a Rabbi or two,were sent to settle in Gennesaret (there is some written verification and maybe an inscription) and of course built a town. That town was Nazareth. That's my current theory, anyway. That of course would give you 1st c remains, but not early 1st c remains.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-07-2016 at 04:57 AM..
As far as historical Nazareth and Bethlehem... what people should keep in mind is that not that long ago skeptics and critics of Christianity have been decrying the lack of archaelogical evidence. Yet we've had such evidence come to light.
No we haven't. All that has been found is a single dwelling foir something that the Bible describes as a 'city'.
Quote:
B.Bagatti published his findings in the 60s about rock hewn tombs and storage pits dating to the first century. In the 60's an ancient inscription in a synagogue in Caesarea mentioned Nazareth. In the 90's R Voss and S Pfann reported their discoveries of winepresses, irrigation channels, foundations of watchtowers, agricultural terraces, pottery shards and coins dating to the first century all found in proximity to Nazareth.
All Franciscan monks I might add, desperately trying to prove that Nazareth did exist so that they can show that the Bible is correct when it says that their Jesus came from Nazareth. Regarding Bagatti. You might like to look at this....
...and even a small hamlet was pushing it!!! Certainly not a city as described in the Bible.
S. Pfann fares no better - having been soundly debunked be REAL archaeologist on his 'Jesus Family Tomb' tripe.
If you are going to present 'evidence'. Make sure it is credible.
Quote:
The Israel Antiquities Authority put out a press release about the ruins of an ancient house in Nazareth.
We've just discussed in a few posts ago. Where is the rest of the 'city'? Where is the synagogue that the man-god was supposed to have gone to? Oh...and I wouldn't hang your hat on what the Israel Antiquities Authority say either. Tourism brings in a lot of dosh...if you get my drift.
]LOL! I don't think so. I gave some examples earlier. Your Franciscan monk archaeologist are as reliable in matters of archaeology as Simcha Jacabovici.
There was no 'Nazareth in the 1st century. You need to accept that that part of your gospels (amongst others) is bunkum
Ehrman also quotes....
"the dwelling and older discoveries of nearby tombs in burial caves suggest that Nazareth was an out-of the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres… populated by Jews of modest means.”
...and personally, after reading some of his books, I don't think Ehrman is the agnostic atheist he claims to be.So again. Where is the 'City of Nazareth' described in the Bible?
What about Bethlehem? A bulla (it's a piece of clay used with wax to seal documents) was discovered in the area of Jerusalem dated to the 7th century BCE and was connected with a shipment of goods from Bethlehem. url=http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/23/science/la-sci-sn-bethlehem-seal-20120523]Israeli archaeologists find ancient seal from Bethlehem. - latimes[/url]. So if Bethlehem existed 700 years before Jesus and after Jesus why would it not have existed in Jesus's day.
Well at least you call it evidence. Raf does not believe anything we have put out is evidence at all.
Perhaps your problem is that you don't know the difference between 'evidence' and 'verifiable evidence'. One is important and the other isn't.Do you know which?
I don't know what you and Raffs are disagreeing about, other than what seems to be whether Tacitus is valid evidence or not.
That's about it actually. As I read it, he is saying that, because Tacitus mentioned that other authors had written conflicting reports about the fire of Rome, then Tacitus MUST have researched those very authors and found the Christ passage within their works and quoted it from their work.
I disagree. Mentioning that other authors had written conflicting reports about the fire doesn't mean that Tacitus got his material from those very authors that wrote the conflicting reports. In any event like that, there are different sides to the story. One doesn't have to research those conflicting reports to get information. Tacitus may have got his information from the Imperial Roman Archives and not those other authors or he may have got it from other authors but either way, without knowing what sources Tacitus used there is no verifiable evidence that the source he used contained the Christ passage.
I maintain that, in view of the reasons I have given and also agreeing with you regarding the brevity and 'mentioned in passing with very little detail' nature of the passage, that he likely picked it up from hearsay or from the Christian beliefs about their Jesus that he either heard from them directly of from others who had heard what the Christians were saying.
I tend to agree with you my old fart...that if Tacitus had got his Christ info from official documents then those documents would have contained more info than the mere mention of where Christians got their name...(names, dates, times, witness statements, prosecution/defence statements, verdict/sentence, date/time of sentence carried out etc)...and Tacitus would likely have mention more of those things, if not there then somewhere else.
We do eventually get to arguing about the validity of peoples' thinking and indeed the validity of the way we think altogether.
I have to say that I do accept the burden of proof in respect of the Bible, as it is a book, like any other, and, while some may say that it is up to the historian to prove what in it is rue, i don't think that works.
I think we should begin by taking it as some helpful information, until we can say with some certainly that it isn't true. "The angels of Mons" and "The guard dies, it does not surrender". was taken as reliable very often and I think it had to be, until it was shown that they were Journalists' inventions.
Ancient history has to be taken as acceptable apart from those bits we can show to be wrong, unbelievable or at least dubious, like the Gordian knot, Boudicca's speech, the drowing of the sacrificial chickens or the miraculous rain in Sallust's Jugurthine war.
That's how we should approach the Bible. In fact I am prepared to give benefit of doubt and say that a miracle doesn't require automatic rejection. If Jesus could do them, then they were done.
I wish more people would look at things like that Trans. If something is written and someone disagrees with that which is written the BOP should be on the one who brings up the disagreement to prove what is written is incorrect. Until what is written can be proven to be wrong, what is written must stand as it is. That is why I disagree with Rafs. Belief does not need proof. If belief does not need proof all anyone has to say is I do not believe what is written to be true so it is up to the other guy to prove what they believe to be wrong. In other words they do not have to defend what they believe, it's an idiotic stance.
Quote:
What does happen is that historically the nativities conradict. The burden of proof does then fall on the apologist to explain how they can be reconciled and if their explanations do not convince the skeptic, they fail.
I agree here also
Quote:
If the resurrection account contradict, the burden of proof does then fall on the apologists to make them work and if they can be shown to be inadequate, they fail. I know the apologists won't like that, but that is the way it works.
I agree here also
Quote:
Now I can just hear the clamour that even demonstrably absurd tales about Vinland doesn't mean the Vikings never found America. But if geographically it could be shown to be unworkable, (say up in the Polar region) then it would be rejected. That is what happens with the nativity. Neither account works.
This means that there was for sure a real Jesus, but historically not born in Bethlehem. The implicaion is that he was born in Galilee, and since nazareth doesn't seem to have existed at the time, probably Capernaum. Pending further evidence, of course, but that is the probability and to insist that Bethlehem or Nazareth is factually true in spite of the Real evidence is of course faith -based illogic.
To reject that gospel claim then shows why it was made at all, and we know why. To have esus fulfil the prophecy. That not only tells us abot the writers and their agenda, but is reminds us that Mark didn't have such a story and ohn pretty much denies a Bethlehem nativity altogether. Those two together put two nails in the coffin of the Nativity and Gospel reliability.
The Nazareth question is still open for debate.
Quote:
The excuses about 'witnesses' and 'different points of view' in view of such a test-case are no more than Faith -based denial of the way the evidence firmly points. That is why I say I accept the burden of proof and it has been discharged. Now it does fall squarely on the shoulders of the believers. And trying to validate a historical Jesus from tacitus or Josephus is simply dickering about an argument that is long since done and dusted.
Tim ONiell tried to validate the Flavian Testament to try to support some of the Gospel claims. We saw that failed. Lane Craig tried to validate the resurrection by argument and I can tell you that failed, too.
That is where the argument really now is, and not about whether there was a real Jesus or not, and not about where the burden of proof lies or what the early church fathers thought, believed and wrote.
It is neither really about Bible authorities, because, by and large, they begin by accepting the sayings and dong of the Gospels as true (more or less) without question and this, friends, buggers every one of them, their books, arguments and authority at the start, nor about appeals to Faith, scripture and personal experiences on one hand or rejection of the miraculous, dislike of religion or some other kind of atheist prejudice.
It is about the credibility of the Gospel accounts, using whatever supportive valid evidence we can use and whatever mental tools we have. It is about that, and has been for a long time.
So shall we begin or is the gospels still off limits, Raf needs to pipe in here.
I'm ready to move on to that. The nativity clearly falls on it's face,with it's contradictions between Matthew and Luke. As for the 'Nazareth' farce. The evidence points to there being no 'Nazareth' (at least not as the Bible describes it) in the 1st century CE.
Are you saying the gospel are now accepted in this thread?
But we know that he is considered to have made some errors and invented the whole Boudicca speech. No doubt he checked up to the best of his ability and where necessary, consulted what records the Romans had. I would think it is being over literal in applying that claim to every chance remark he made in passing. He may have looked up the records that said that Jesus the Jew was executed by Pilate. it would probably give details of the charge, who made the arrest, what accomplices there were. What the accused said in his defence, etc.
Tacitus says none of that and, as you reasonably say, he didn't need to, as it was by the way.
If it was that much by the way, he had other more important matters to consult the records about.
In any case, Tacitus is just confirmation that Pilate executed the man from whom the Christians got their name. and come to think of it, that does sound like talk about Christians rather than official record. Provisionally, I come down on the hearsay side.
.
And again I have to point out that Tacitus was not looking up things about Jesus, he was looking up things about the great fire. So if he was looking up things about the fire why would he need to go into details of the charge, who made the arrest, what accomplices there were. What the accused said in his defence, etc. ?
The arrest and charges of Jesus have nothing to do with the fire, so why would he mention anything about them?
Quote:
What they have discovered is a resounding lack of a 1st c Nazareth. A farm and a well but not much more than that. If it was, there would not be such strenuous efforts to conjure up a decent sized town by postulating a synagogue under a church (appealing to oral tradition), arguing that old tombs could have been used as dwellings and as I recall (1), assigning early Roman pottery a date of Jesus' time when there was no support for that dating.
Again, It doesn't matter to me whether there was a Nazareth town or not, but it does matter to Gospel credibility, so a Nazareth there has to be, whether there was one or not. So if a decent sized town or even village turns up, fine, but so far I haven't seen any real evidence other than wishful thinking.
Which is what we get in our link. One house, fine. The tombs are not datable to Jesus' time, so I read elsewhere. Just look how they wag about evidence from other places and other times that they say 'Jesus' Nazareth would have looked like' or used. Maybe, if it had ever been there.
You really need what ...a dozen such houses before you have a village? And fifty before you can talk of a town, and a hundred or so before you have one with a synagogue! But it doesn't matter, since Luke's Nazareth synagogue tale is demonstrable bunk anyway.
(1) I had a long debate on the subject with old Eusebius, and all the "evidence" (which I followed up and tracked down) turned out to be wishful thinking, as I say, other than this one house. I did see some drawn plans suggesting a wider complex, but that just makes it a bigger farm. More and more dwellings may come to light, but so far, nothing has.
Yet you cannot discount what has so far been found. And showing pictures of what the town might have looked like is not a strenuous effort. Archaeology does that all the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
