Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
Historical Jesus
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Jay walker (U685047) on Saturday, 26th May 2007
Is there any real evidence of the existence of Jesus ?
-
Message 2
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Saturday, 26th May 2007
Do you think the New Testament got written by people who made it all up?
-
Message 3
Posted by Jay walker (U685047) on Sunday, 27th May 2007
More Hostility ! A christian,I suspect.
-
Message 4
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Sunday, 27th May 2007
The historicity of Jesus was debated extensively in the following thread:
-
Message 5
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 27th May 2007
As someone who took part in that debate I would certainly recommend a review of the evidence from both sides.
I would just quote one section out of it from the book 'Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels', by the prominent Roman historian Michael Grant and he completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed.
鈥淭his sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.鈥
My understnding is that Grant was an athiest. -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 27th May 2007
Though there is no proof of his existence as a historic person, there are no serious points also to deny his existence. Most probably he did but certainly he had not done all these stuff that others said he did. First of all half of his life had been quite similar to the lifes of other religious people like Chrisna in india (human face of god on earth, son of god, prophecy of a king to be born above all kings, the local king kills all baby-boys... there are so many points taken from other religions that certainly its all a fabricated myth. But that does not mean that Jesus did not exist as person.
By 5th century and in order to make it more popular to the Greek world christianity had virtually alterred face and it god rid of its earlier more intense jewish one (due to its origins). Hence you had 12 Apostles from the 12 Gods of Olympus, Christmas to replace the 25 Dec. Sun celebrations, abolition of circumcision (something seen as disgusting by Greeks) and the philosophical dressing of the religion etc, the sculptures, the icons, the churches etc. It was all a propaganda that had nothing to do with the historical figure of Jesus who most probably had been a provincial pseudo-propher figure, a bit like Mohamed (though the latter was on other othings like war, slaughter and playing the paidophile).
.... religions... since the dawn of mankind they put more burdens on people than they do good... -
Message 7
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 27th May 2007
Define "Real"?
Seeing as the chroniclers of the time, Muslim and Jewish and Roman sources all agree, he (Jesus)existed.
Loads of evidence that JC existed.
I apologise if I have answered your question correctly.
AA. -
Message 8
Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Sunday, 27th May 2007
I agree with the majority of Historians that, after weighing the evidence, the balance of probability points to an historical Jesus. I also agree with the view that gospel accounts were an attempt to downplay the'Jewishness' of the man later called Christ. Portions of the narrative of his trial and death seem to be deliberately absolving the Roman authorities of responsibility for his death. I think this was a propagandist move, motivated by a desire to gain recruits in the Greco/Roman world.
-
Message 9
Posted by pumbar (U1339624) on Monday, 28th May 2007
Seeing as the chroniclers of the time, Muslim and Jewish and Roman sources all agree, he (Jesus)existed.听
There were Moslems around at the time of Jesus??? Am I missing something?? -
Message 10
Posted by Jay walker (U685047) on Monday, 28th May 2007
I've been here before -Define REAL the man says .
Then he'll choose another word to define-ad infinitum. Define Define, but when you do you will have to use Words,which I shall ask you to define. Got it ? -
Message 11
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Monday, 28th May 2007
<quote> Is there any real evidence of the existence of Jesus.</quote?There's plenty of good evidence regarding the historical Jesus.
b.60- 120ad
Tacitus,a prominent Roman Historian wrote about him in "The Trial of Pompona Graecina in AD57. (Annales ,X111,32.
The Neroan Persecution. Tacitus. Annales XV 44.
Suetonius (c75 -160 ad) Vita Neronis XV1
(62 - 113ad.)
Pliny the Younger. Plin. Epp.X (ad Traj.) XCV1
Trajan to Pliny. in reply. Plin. Epp. XCV1.
Justin's Apology. (C150.) 1 .XLV1)
These are references to authors from about just after the Crucifiction.
Documents of the Christian Church.
Hope they are of interest. -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th May 2007
Well said copperworks, indeed evangelists having the (understandable) dream of spreading the religion as far as possible would do many things to sell it in more acceptable to their audience ways and that is something that continued much later by many missionaries who usually tried to understand first the culture and then find a suitable way to "spread the word".
Jewish prior to the spread of christianism were just a nation made out of a collection of tribes habitating in Palestine and during Hellenistic times having a minor diaspora around the kingdoms, later in Rome - there some had noticed them for their unusual traditions (1 god without statues etc.) and their concentration around religious but then they were not the only ones, there were many other over-religious nations and many religions hence they passed relatively unseen. The Palestinian people more known around the Mediterranean were their neighbours Phoenicians (with whom they had not necessarily the best of relations) since along with competitors Greeks were the main shipping force of the Mediterranean.
After the spreading of the religion, Jewish people became more recognisable among the citizens of the Empire but then due to the fact that the new religion had been a part that was dissasembled from the jewish religious tradition and got into conflict with it, jewish were unfortunately seen in a rather negative way (betrayed christ for money, asked for the death of an innocent etc.) thus perpetuating some negative stereotypes for the Jewish (being unfair, greedy etc.) that a bit later, after the destruction of Israel Jewish practically could not avoid (when you cannot possess land you necessarily will do jobs that have to do with money and certainly you will have to play dirty, like anyone else of course, to survive and prosper). -
Message 13
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 28th May 2007
Sigh,
I was refering to the later works of Islam whereby they (the Muslims, or Moeslems) recognise Jesus Christ as a Prophet.
Even Mohammed accepted him as a prophet!
If you search for differences you will find them, I prefer to search for similarities.
AA. -
Message 14
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 28th May 2007
Umm, I'm not sure that because Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet that necessarily has any bearing on the phyisical existence of such a figure what with the fact that we're talking about a difference of six hundred years. Likewise the list of non Biblical sources does not confirm Jesus' existence here or there, just that of the emerging church.
-
Message 15
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 28th May 2007
Perhaps you are best considering that there were a multitude of Jesus like figures over a the period of around 150 years. Then of course there is what Jesus meant to subsequent believers which in itself is perhaps of greater significance than the than the life story narrative.
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 28th May 2007
very true
-
Message 17
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007
Re: Message 15.
lol,
I say the same as Nikolaos: "very true".
Warm regards and with esteem.
Paul. -
Message 18
Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007
Did anyone else see the Turn shroud programe about the evidence that it is an image of the historical person jesus?, including bllod type, persoanly i found it very convincing.
-
Message 19
Posted by Tim Of Aclea (U4517144) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007
E_Nikolaos-E
You wrote
"By 5th century and in order to make it more popular to the Greek world christianity had virtually alterred face and it god rid of its earlier more intense jewish one (due to its origins). Hence you had 12 Apostles from the 12 Gods of Olympus,"
The 12 apostles appear well before the 5th C AD
The earliest written reference is from 1 Corinthians which is widely accepted as an authentic letter written by Paul written between 50 and 60 AD.
1 Cor 15 5 'and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,' -
Message 20
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007
Is there any real evidence of the existence of Jesus ?
听
None, if by that you mean contemporary reference of a standard normally applied to historical figures of the period.
As the previous thread referred to here explored in some depth however (and this thread seems to be setting out in the same direction) the circumstantial evidence merits examination, if only because it is so often subjectively claimed to represent 'proof' in itself.
Argument and disagreement arises from the criteria adopted to pursue that examination. Or put another way, the credibility of the material as it has been treated en route to its modern day availability is either deemed to have been diminished on the basis of its rigorous and subjective editing, or deemed to be enhanced on the basis of the fact that, despite such editing, disparate elements of the material agree on some fundamental data.
By my own reckoning I side with the former view and would deplore the same loose standards of largely unsubstantiated acceptance being applied to the investigation of any other historical personages and events, my reservations being grounded totally in the unashamedly partisan and subjective manner in which the material has been doctored - leaving one to deduce reality from propaganda instead of being free to infer reality from empirical and testable data. But at the same time I acknowledge that the theological significance of the material - and its subsequent impact on history - hints circumstantially at an event of some historical significance at its core. That the event, or the character behind it, is in accord with the received perception however is something that documentary evidence alone does not verify.
So the short answer, to me, is 'no'. But the correct answer is 'just possibly', as long as one does not set out to 'prove' that the person or events as generally depicted are to be taken as literal historical truths. -
Message 21
Posted by Tim Of Aclea (U4517144) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
Nordmann
without wishing to repeat our previous discussions I would point to the letters of paul that are widely accepted as having been written by Paul (Romans; 1 and 2 corinthians, galatians, Philipians, 1 thesselonians and Philemon) as giving quite sufficient evidence of the existance of jesus.
In the previous postings I did set out at length all the evidence concerning Jesus' life that could be ascertained from those letters.
regards
Tim -
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
You did indeed Tim, without entertaining the notion, I noted at the time, that the 'letters' themselves constitute anything other than reliable documentary evidence.
-
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
Alors (that french say!), I have great news! Jesus lived and walked on the earth. Yesterday night in french channel TF1 it had a documentary on a research done in the tombs found in Jerusalem that date around the 1 A.D. century. So far there have been found many jewish tombs (from various centuries) up to 1st A.D. century, since after that the numbers get scarce as most Jewish were massacred and expelled from Palestine.
Most of work and idfentification had been done in the 70s and early 80s, cos afterwards most places were buried by the housing development of the modern city (modern needs override archaeology, same happens in Greece were the problem is even more intense!). Now, from the tombs found were traditionally studied individually, positioned, numbered and classified. Hence, you had 100s of Jesus, 100s of Marias, 100s of Josephs, Joses and so on, nothing particular to attract attention as it could be just anyone. However, a group of some clever guys noticed that Jewish (like other cultures) tended to bury families together and that since the bible says that Jesus along with many members of his family were buried in Jerusalem, maybe we should not search for one name but for a collection of names of families! Bingo!
So after searching tombs in the perspective of families, they found this guy whose tomb says (always in Aramaic, the international mesopotamian language of the times): "Jesus, son of Josef". Hint! Next to it "Maria". Hint hint! Next to it Josa (a brother of Jesus, note that his name was rather rare for the times). Hint hint hint! There was a Matthew that was not a family member from the father's side but then on his mother's side the name Matthew was quite common so that could be a relative from that side!!! Amazing!!! The chances of having all that together even if taking out Matthew is arouns 1 in 200,000!!! The guys were almost adamant that this had been the family tomb of the Jesus-family. Father was missing cos he was probably buried in Nazareth (he is not mentioned of having moved and stayed in Jerusalem but his mother did so).
Of course there were other archaiologists that insisted that "you can never know" though some of them were adamant that the elaborate tomb with the name "Kaif" (great priest Kaifas who accused Jesus to Romans) had to be certainly that of the famous Testament character on the basis of the rarity of the name and on the basis of the rich tomb. However the first team was accusing these ones that they were ready to accept possibilities of 1 in 200 (1 name) and rejecting possibilities of 1 in 200,000 (5-6 names together!).
The first group of archaiologists went on to identify another tomb wihch was writting this time not in Aramaic but in Greek, Maria Magdalene - being adamant that this tomb had been that of this famous, indeed intriguing personality. Greek and not Aramaic implies a lot of "hints" because the city she is mentioned to come from was a very hellenised Greek city, hence Jewish from there tended to use the Greek alphabet! Another hint is that some of the aforementioned tombs had a special marking something like an inverse V and a point in between that had been found in proto-christianic tombs elsewhere and commented on the fact that the symbol of the cross was a rather later symbol as for proto-christians the cross had been something extremely negative (you would not make an electric chair your symbol if your leader died recently on it!).
.... a rather intriguing documentary I would say, and to be honest I can understand that even if they would had identified this as Jesus' tomb they would not tell you just like that... "hey! Take that! We found Jesus tomb, cool eh?". -
Message 24
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
That particular documentary was blown out of the water by nearly everyone with any expertise in any related discipline on every side of the debate and on every level. Shoddy and pure sensationalism were the two most common charges levelled against both the 'antiqarian' who made the claims and Cameron, who directed it and part-funded it. They both made a tidy profit from the distribution deal all the same, which I suspect was the whole point of the thing.
-
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
Of course there are other issues behind (creating sensation and attracting funding) and it can be all lies but then when you do not see constructive counter-arguments there is some fire burnign underneath and it is not just smoke.
Fist of all, once that team made this research be it fully scientific or not, other scientists should comment on it. Explain where is the If the Tomb jesus is a real 1st A.D. century and if the other tombs with the names are also 1st A.D. century tombs and if indeed were found in proximity implying a family grave then sorry but you have mathematically a possibility of 1 in 200,000 that is indeed really high.
Someone that wants to have this research out should first attack two facts: whether graves are genuine 1 A.D. ones and whether they were found in proximity and not collected from various random parts. If he/she fails to do so then he cannot attack the team supporting this theory - if the team establishes solidly that these graves were found together in a family tomb style and that they are genuine 1st A.D. century graves then they have actually found the grave of Jesus, no wonder!
As simple as that sorry but it is that simple! But a large part of the club of archaiologists (around the world) are famed for lack of pure scientific methodologies and insistence in more or less propagansistic positions. Sorry but that scientist that accepted the grave as that of Kaifas should followingly accept the other grave as that of Jesus, if not reject both as being random. I.e. easy to talk about a lesser (positive or negative) figure of the bible and more difficult to talk about a huge one like Christ.
Perhaps they had found bones in the grave and they did not want to spoil the peoples' dreams? I find it ridiculous and humiliating for the human race. If you have proofs, come out and say it and show no remorce and no respect (there is nothing to respect in a lie) to any false religion that tired the world for the last 50-100,000 years... and if anyone disagrees let him place his arguments and test them... anyway if they had found bones in the grave the church would go out to say something like that it had been the bad enemies of the new religion that placed another corpse to prove to proto-christians that Jesus was really dead!
Jesus was just a man and his grave (if buried normally) is somewhere down there in the vicinity and one day we can bump on it as we could bump on anyone's grave, now if that team had all evidence they presented correct, then it is highly unlikely that this is not the Jesus-tomb! -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
and of course I am in no position to test whether all of their material is genuine - afterall the police of Israel complains often about the rampant phenomena of false archaiological discoveries that occur every year (remember the Solomon temple stones some years back?) since the land of Palestine happens to be the birthplace for one old religion and its two offsprings that survive up to modern times. However if I see that there is also no reaction to their findings (i.e. specific counterargumentation) other than just overgeneralised comments that try to hide away the issue - the usual way of politicians and propagandists - then indeed there is fire under the smoke. After all a truth that you are afraid off, you do not fight it but place it aside either by ridiculising it or completely ignoring it (acting as if it does not exist). Good old trick and it most often works nicely.
-
Message 27
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
You're framing your argument within the parameters set by the programme makers. It's an old propagandist technique - define the parameters in which the argument is conducted and you're guaranteed to win the debate. Question instead the accuracy of the 'odds' you cited, the absence of alternative interpolations of the 'evidence' presented in the programme, and not least the apparently gratuitous hopping between factual assertion and informed speculation, and you'll begin to understand how you've been led into advertising the product.
-
Message 28
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007
Is this the one from that other bloke who claims to be King of the World? Slight problem with the gospels and the ressurection and all that if there is a phyical grave however I suspect those who deny its authenticity on doctrinal grounds can rest easy as the research and presentation is seriously flawed. The writer behind the claim believes that the James brother of Jesus ossary that turned up in Brazil is genuine. Still I think it more a case of documentary makers using unsubstantiated claims and cutting and pasting their expert interviews to get the right response and many have since altered or retracted their statements.
Even if we ignore how such a family somehow managed to gain a rather impressively carved rock cut tomb it is likely that some reference would have been made to their origin outside the Kingdom of Judea if they came from one of the regions conquered under the Hasmonean dynasty. Indeed the scholar used to demonstrate "Mariamne Mara" is the Greek form of Mary of Magdalane the Master has denied that he ever meant it must therefore be one and the same with the Biblical character because she preached in that language (as if she actually inscribed her own ossary). The origin for this assertion, even more tenuous than the Gospels, comes from Gnostic writings dating to around 200. The authors also vastly inflate the size of Magdala in the Roman period in order to suggest it was a major centre of Hellenism to justify this claim. Besides which approximately one in five womens' names from the period are derivations of Miriam/Mary and many of those are written as Mariamne and they can't all have come from a samll village by the sea of Gallilee. If so, they were particularly unimaginative or they had more to do with their time like making up so many different words from all the bases that Greek provided them with.
Perhaps more tellingly the statistical calculations used to justify the likely identity of the occupants of the tomb, the figure quoted is between 600 and 1000 to 1, is actully just the chance of such names being found in conjunction with each other. Given the population of the Levant around the time it could be practically anybody. Others even contest that the specific names are not those written on the ossaries in the first place. Some think it is Hunan not Jesus son of Joseph.
Mind you the identification of the Temple High Priest's tomb is only fully recognised by the Israeli archaelogicl service and as such has been influenced more by desires to provide a foundation for the nationalist ideology of the modern state of Israel, something that affects archaeological remains wherever they are found as I ma sure you and the Macedonians are well aware. Most archaeologists cast doubt over such a secure identification however. The fact is the inscriptions on the outside of ossary's are notorious for not being related to who is inside the box, possibly because the remains were deposited in the containers many years after the body had been laid out. For example one ossary containing the remains Cephais' son turned out to be somebodies daughter, perhaps they forgot to check under the fake beard.
Still the DNA evoidence is perhaps the most overblown piece of hype about the whole story. What do we expect to do, recreate the son of God Jurassic Park style? You can almost sense that someone will think this is a way to hurry along the second coming. All it seems to prove is that the occupants of the two boxes did not share the same maternal line. No claims are made to the paternal line of the male burial, a blessed mercy as otherwise it would be little different to the Jeremy Kyle show. Still I'd guess the fact that the claims of the da Vinci Code and The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail are better publicised than claims by one of the documentary team that the biological father of the Biblical Jesus was actually a Roman named Pantera is why they concentrate more on the marriage aspect. Presumably there was not enough biological material to conduct a study of the Latinised mother of Jesus (maybe it was that fraternisation with Roman soliders, over paid, oversexed and over there and all that) not to mention the supposed issue of the two subjects marriage. -
Message 29
Posted by Tim Of Aclea (U4517144) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
Nordmann
"You did indeed Tim, without entertaining the notion, I noted at the time, that the 'letters' themselves constitute anything other than reliable documentary evidence."
The vast majority of scholars of the period, including Bart Erhman whom you quoted, seem to consider them reliable evidence.
there are of course some 'Pauline' letters that would not be deemed to be so reliable; everone would agree on 3 Corinthians, for example. -
Message 30
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
I would tend to dispute that statement, as you know, Tim. The majority of scholars who I have read, even those who subscribe to the same faith as their alleged author, tend to set a question mark over the exact significance of their content with regard to their use as historical source texts for the events depicted therein. Not necessarily because they are 'dodgy' testimony within the paramaters set by believers (they are most definitely not that) but because they are partisan texts written after the event in which assumption is rife. Paul was, after all, writing to the converted as it were, and shared beliefs are indistinguishable in that context from objective and factual reportage. Both are presented as fact, and you would not expect anything else.
One of these works, an interesting book by a man with the unfortunate name of Dennis Ronald McDonald, "The Legend and the Apostle - The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon" from about 20 years ago, set about analysing the content as it has been handed down over the centuries in a chiefly historical fashion. How have they survived translation? Who translated them? Who has edited them and why? How 'original' are the earliest known copies? That kind of thing. The guy never disputes once that they were written by Paul, or indeed that they are what is claimed on their behalf - basically administrative texts issued by an early church organiser - but he admits that as 'historical source material' they leave a lot to be desired in their current manifestation. To believers they are an almost invaluable link to the first expression of the tenets still shared by the faithful, but to outsiders they (tantalisingly) report only that which is relevant to believers and ascribe factual status to events that may or may not have already been 'edited' through hearsay and second hand reporting before Paul wrote them down. They have immense historical worth as an insight into how at least one important christian proselytizer thought, but not as verification of anything that actually happened in Judaea in the period 20 or so years beforehand when the church, prior to Paul's inclusion in its development, germinated.
But Paul is a bit of a blind when it comes to the Jesus question, I think. Even if the letters as they stand were 100% kosher and proveably so, they are removed temporally from the actual events surrounding the character at the centre of the new faith's belief structure. They are not contemporary so they must by definition therefore fall into the 'circumstantial' category, even if they are pretty early entries in that category. That does not mean that they are intentional falsehoods or unreliable witnesses to what was believed in their own time period, but it does mean that they lack the provenance required to list them as hard evidence verifying much about the Jesus character except that people believed in him. -
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
Nordmann, lolbeeble thanks for the feedback. Nordmann I did not try to frame an argument just transposed what was said by that team of researchers without the capacity to verify the veracity of their claims but anyway you were right to pinpoint the danger of doing so... No I was not convinced by the documentary cos the team in their enthousiasm were throwing information on the table with a uncunny ease, then when they started talking about Dan Brown-like theories about Madgalene being probably the wife or beloved of Jesus that moved to France and returned to die in Palestine, it was really spiraling out of a scientific approach (if not earlier).
However, the reason I mentioned it in detail was another: personally I believe that there must have been some guy Jesus who became the inspiration for the new religion (though his life must had little resemblance to what was said later about him). There is no proof but then if so many people 50 and 100 years after him believed so I have no particular reason to deny his existence. Since I am not into religion, I believe he was a man like you and me, thus he died and thus if he was buried normally then there must be some grave thus one day we may accidentally bump on it. Now if it has or if it has not his bones inside it it will be another story. It is probable that his bones will be absent (either someone had made some farce and proto-christians created the myth around it or for any other reason the bones were taken and buried elsewhere, or... even used to make magic talismans). The main question is that will we accept to do a direct research on the issue and coldly throw out the truth to the world "yes it is his grave" or will we have the church, politicians and anyone involved to say that no this no that blah blah?
To be honest, personally I have a rather large list of famous people whose grave I would like to locate and Jesus is not on the top of it. -
Message 32
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
Hi E_Nik,
...personally I have a rather large list of famous people whose grave I would like to locate and Jesus is not on the top of it.听
I've also got a long list of graves of famous people I want to find. Not for any historical purposes, but to use as gravel-encrusted dancefloors...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
A grave apart from being a dancefloor can also be a reference point, the last material link to the dead person.
-
Message 34
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
L Ron Hubbard managed to make himself a God in the 1950's. He founded Scientology.
He had the advantage of printed books and tape recordings. To record his every word.
But will what Hubbard said, be remembered in 100 years.
What Jesus said has lasted 2,000 years, so surely there must be something true in it? -
Message 35
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
The relevance, intelligence or long-lasting popularity of the philosophy, just as the numbers who choose to believe in the existence of something as an article of faith, do not in themselves contribute validity to the historical reality of any aspect to the story surrounding its origins or originator. Historical research does not, nor cannot, work that way.
In the case of Jesus there exists no corroborative material from his contemporary milieu or time. There exists circumstantial evidence from later, much of it collated and preserved by adherents to the faith, and in the process often edited by them. In purely historical terms therefore Jesus is not well served by artefact, documentary or otherwise material evidence. He produced no writings, received no contemporary recognition that itself was recorded (or survived if it was), and in terms of his life and character became known to a wider audience than his initial small sect and its adherents only through much proselytization over many years.
There is also considerable evidence that the perception and presentation of the character has been fundamentally altered, even within the higher echelons of the church founded in his name, on several occasions in the meantime. All of this makes it nigh on impossible to state emphatically, from the aspect of historical research, that he - as he is perceived to have lived - did so. -
Message 36
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 31st May 2007
Dunno Mal, I mean nine out of ten startup religions fail in their first century.
-
Message 37
Posted by Jay walker (U685047) on Friday, 1st June 2007
I have a list of famous people I'd like to see buried in a grave.
-
Message 38
Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Friday, 1st June 2007
a little while ago archeologist found the tomb of a jewish judge, one who condemend christ to the Romans for punishment, his name only existsed in the bible as a refernce to a person, untill his tomb was found, (which incidently, the vast majorty of people who have lived and died cannot be proven to have existed at all by usual standards of evidence) he was thought to be an invention...
-
Message 39
Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Friday, 1st June 2007
"I have a list of famous people I'd like to see buried in a grave."
Intrestngly my daughter saved T Blair`s life, if it were not for her, id have killed him...... -
Message 40
Posted by Tim Of Aclea (U4517144) on Friday, 1st June 2007
Nordmann
Dennis Ronald McDonald, "The Legend and the Apostle - The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon" was written in 1983
A review I read specifically refers to this book as covering the apocryphal "Acts of Paul" and the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) of the canonical New Testament. Also the legend of Thecla, the virgin and martyr who was converted by Paul and who, with his blessing, became a Christian teacher.
The point is that these are not the Pauline letters that I was either refering to or quoting from previously. The Pastoral espistles are not generally accepted as having been written by Paul, other than perhaps parts of them, and nor would be Acts of Paul or the legend of Paul and Thecla be considered as historically reliable in themselves. You can also read all about them in the more recent Bart Erhmann book 'Peter, Paul and Mary Magdelene' I am afraid I cannot see that the above has much bearing on the reliability of the accepted pauline letters.
I might point out that originally you claimed the following 鈥淧robably most damning of the lot is the fact that christianity's greatest spreader of the faith in the early days - Paul, a near contemporary - seems never to have heard of him. he talks a lot about god, but nothing whatsoever of Jesus the character. He doesn't quote him once, says zilch about any miracles, teachings or crucifixion, and resurrection features on Paul's horizon with all the prominence of his sense of humour! Of course, if we conclude that Paul has as dubious historical grounds for existing as Jesus, we still have to ask ourselves why those who invented him neglected to include a convincing 'tie in' with the Jesus character.鈥
No mention there of the unreliability of Paul鈥檚 letters.
1 Gal 4 v . 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,
Jesus was not a spiritual being, he was born of a woman, a human being.
Rom 9 v 5 Theirs are the Patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ
Jesus is descended from the patriarchs, he is Jew
Rom 1 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
Jesus is descended from king David, he is of the tribe of Judah
Rom 9 v 5 Don鈥檛 we have the right to take a believing wife along with us as do the other apostles and the Lord鈥檚 bothers and Cephas?
Jesus had more than one brother.
Gal 1 v 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
One of Jesus鈥 brothers was called James
1 Cor 15 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
Jesus had 12 followers, known as apostles
Rom 9 v 5Don鈥檛 we have the right to take a believing wife along with us as do the other apostles and the Lord鈥檚 bothers and Cephas?
Gal 2 v 8, 9 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle 鈥 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars
Two of the apostles are called Peter (Cephas) and John
Romans 9 to 11
Jesus was rejected by the Jews
1 Co r 11 23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Jesus initiated the eating of bread and wine in remembrance of him.
1 Co r 11 23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
Jesus was betrayed and he initiated the eating of bread and wine in remembrance of him on the night he was betrayed.
1 Cor 1 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
Jesus died by crucifixion
1 Cor 5 v 7 For Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed.
Jesus died at the Passover.
1 Cor 15 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried,
He was buried
1 Cor 15 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Paul believed he rose from the dead on the third day.
1 Cor 15 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
He was seen by various people including Peter, James and the apostles.
1 Cor 15 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
This happened within fairly recent times as the majority of the 500 are still alive. Therefore there were plenty of people around who could verify the truth of this to the Corinthian church.
1 Thess 5 1 Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
They believed that Jesus will come again
I still maintain that it is difficult to see why Paul should have written this about Jesus unless he existed.
Lastly on the subject of Paul not quoting Jesus
1 Cor 7 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. -
Message 41
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 1st June 2007
Hi Tim - you're doing it again. Quoting content from Paul's letters does not alter their standing as historical source material since they are neither corroborating fact nor presenting fact that can be corroborated from the material record. That does not mean necessarily that they are a load of twaddle (though rising from the dead, to me, has to be a faith-inspired concept rather than a reference to an actual event), but it most definitely means that they are part of a body of textual material that demonstrates aspects of the religion's dissemination and growth, but tells us next to nothing about the core events behind that religion's foundation - except of course what their author(s) believed, wished to believe, or wished others to believe. Emphasis there on belief and not knowledge, note.
Your post looks impressive though, I'll give you that much. Chapter and verse thrown out in quantity always is. But it's rather meaningless archaeologically in that it is still second or third hand info about a character whose existence is not verifiable from that data, and there is no contemporary data to help it along. Nor is there anything to properly date the authorship itself - even those who unquestioningly ascribe it to Paul disagree on exact dates and a whole little industry has grown up over the years trying to piece together that side of things from the 'clues' in the texts. All very fascinating to theology and bible students probably, but to archaeology students a prime example of how dangerous it is to theorise based on insufficient data.
McDonald's book by the way covered everything allegedly written by Paul and included in the standard bible versions out there today. I still recommend you read it before you condemn it - in fact I'd say you'd be more in tune with the guy's rather assumptive attitude to the reality of the men in question (both Jesus and Paul) than I was. But I liked that he went to pains to unearth the history of the documents themselves throughout the centuries, even when some of that history casts serious doubt over both their authenticity as they stand, and the motives of those who collated them. -
Message 42
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 1st June 2007
... his name only existsed in the bible as a refernce to a person, untill his tomb was found, (which incidently, the vast majorty of people who have lived and died cannot be proven to have existed at all by usual standards of evidence) he was thought to be an invention...
听
This is a good, and often made, point regarding establishing historical identity. It is also a good example of how this point must be forced to support the establishment of historical identities related to the New Testament's earliest collated material. An archaeologist will immediately point out the flaw in logic of attributing identity to an artefact based on its similarity to, or contextual agreement with, information provided by material that cannot be proven not to be conjectural and is therefore unreliable. It is a common dilemma in fact, and not reserved to biblical archaeology, but in the case of the latter it takes on a strident and divisive aspect since to insist on applying the usual archaeological acid tests rigorously is to stand in defiance of those who rather vocally, and in great numbers, are always quick to 'seize on' such artefacts as 'evidence' in any case. Such is the hunger of believers to anchor their faith in reality.
GrumpyNick-IOW, you are correct to say that the majority of those who have ever lived are nigh on impossible to be proven to have done so. Lives made archaeologically conspicuous by verifiable data are indeed the rarity. But that does not mean that the 'usual standards of reference' are inadequate, and nor does it mean that they should be relaxed when a large number of people vouch with conviction based on faith that they should be.
On that basis many mythological beings would have had to have been accepted as historical truth over the millennia, and while this might not impede the dissemination of a religious faith, it is a serious hindrance to archaeological research when it does occur.
Your point with regard to Caiaphas (the 'judge' you refer to) is typical of such hindrances. First of all the grave did not contain Caiaphas's body, but bodies believed from the inscriptions on the ossaries to belong to a family with a patriarch of that name. Secondly there was nothing to associate the find with the Caiaphas mentioned in the scriptures except that it obviously denoted a family of worth and Caiaphas in the New Testamant is presented as a leading member of the Sanhedrin, obviously a rather wealthy man. The rest of the blanks have been filled by conjecture, not data. To those who do not question the bible's historical references they 'have their man'. To those who are trying to piece together a picture of Judaea in the first century the biblical assumptions are simply 'white noise' interfering with the contextual interpretation of the data.
Your assertion, for example, that Caiaphas was not a common name is also misleading, since it is the variant of the name as represented in Greek (as on one of the ossaries) that is relatively rare, not the name itself.
See the problem archaeologists have? -
Message 43
Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Friday, 1st June 2007
Nordman
"See the problem archaeologists have?"
Yes, frequently, absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence is the term most oftenly banded about is it not?.
To clarify, i have no problem with the evidence supporting Christ as a historical figure, i find such evidence persausive, what i have a problem with is the claims attributed to him as haveing chieved etc, its one thing to be a hoistorical figure, its another to be the son of God, walk on water etc.
"Your assertion, for example, that Caiaphas was not a common name is also misleading, since it is the variant of the name as represented in Greek (as on one of the ossaries) that is relatively rare, not the name itself."
Since i could not remember the name of Caiaphas, nor made any refernce to it being uncommon, im not clear how i mislead you or anyone else!!. -
Message 44
Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Friday, 1st June 2007
Josephus was a Jewish historian born around A.D. 37. In Book 18 of his works, Josephus is primarily concerned with the Caesars of Rome, and their sub-rulers in the eastern part of the Roman Empire including Jerusalem.Chapter 3 Paragraph 3:
"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 wonderful works, 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." -
Message 45
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 1st June 2007
Hi GrumpyNick-IOW,
I'm really wary of the authenticity of that particular passage from Josephus. I find the other mention of him in Book 20 easier to accept, but not so the one in Book 18.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 46
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 1st June 2007
And your unease RF is shared by anyone who has studied the mechanism by which Josephus's 'corroboratory remarks' appeared in transcripts 'on cue' at a very late stage of the development of the organised christian church.
GrumpyNick-IOW, if you weren't referring to Caiaphas then I apologise. But it defeats me which other 'judge' from the New Testament account might fit the picture so. -
Message 47
Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Saturday, 2nd June 2007
"GrumpyNick-IOW, if you weren't referring to Caiaphas then I apologise. But it defeats me which other 'judge' from the New Testament account might fit the picture so."
Nope thats the man whose name i could not recall all right, i just could not see where your comments about me saying it was an uncommen name related in any way, shape or form to what i actualy posted. -
Message 48
Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Saturday, 2nd June 2007
RainbowFfolly
Really?, why so? it was written centuries before the bible was collated. -
Message 49
Posted by GrumpyNick-IOW (U8437974) on Saturday, 2nd June 2007
Nordman
"And your unease RF is shared by anyone who has studied the mechanism by which Josephus's 'corroboratory remarks' appeared in transcripts 'on cue' at a very late stage of the development of the organised christian church."
Not really, since josephus style was imitated by the later writers, its not a problem at all, nor, since Joshepus works, along with Jewish and Arabic etc works all of the contempory period also coroborate the early christan texts, independently mind you, its not a problem at all, and certainly not cause for unease, unless the unease is the person unwillingless to acept fact and theri conclusions from thos efacts.
-
Message 50
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Saturday, 2nd June 2007
Maybe so, but the translation you are relying on wasn't. There are numerous problems with the testomonium, not least that its apparent claim that Jesus was the messiah or annointed one contradicts what early Christian apolagists like Origen claim Josephus said not to mention that such a tract is decidely unlike the general stylistic treatment of such figures in the rest of his works. Surely you are not going to entertain us with the notion that he was inspired by the same spirit as the prophets and the gospel writers when he penned that tract?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.