So what really happened 2000 years ago?

[Damien Evans]

I'll tell you one thing that DID NOT happen 2,000 years ago on December 25th. Some kid named Joshua was not born that day.

Are you sure? There were probably very many children born that day, the chances are high that one of them was called Joshua or equivalent.

 

[cj.23]

I'll tell you one thing that DID NOT happen 2,000 years ago on December 25th. Some kid named Joshua was not born that day.

Actually it's rather likely. I just used the tomb inscription frequencies and population estimates, and it works out as c.35% that a child was born on that day and named Joshua based on the archaeological evidence we have. I'll show you how I worked it out if you want.

cj x

 

[I Ratant]

-A- baby, or babies named Jeshua could very well have been born on 12-25-way back when...
But was it, or any of them -the- baby of the myth?
Considering the problem with the time sheep lamb, also a "grabber" in the myth, which moves the date into the spring, etc, it's just a story, no different from any of them intended to hornswoggle the listener into swallowing all of it.

 

[Olowkow]

Bob Price is an excellent Lovecraft/Cthulhu Mythos scholar. I have never yet read any of his works on this issue, and I suspect if this represents them I'd be in total disagreement. Cite one I should read and i''' do a full discussion and review.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/
He does have his "Lovecraft" side to him. What a memory!
Just take your pick. Probably either "Deconstructing Jesus" or "The Incredible shrinking son of Man". I have not read any of them but I have listened to every "Bible Geek" podcast many times. To me his reasoning just makes sense, and everyone who tries to debunk his research just screams at him with no real evidence or anything to support their claims except the bible.
I don't argue this religion stuff, because I really don't care one way or the other. I just find it interesting purely as history, much as Price does.

 

[cj.23]

Considering the problem with the time sheep lamb, also a "grabber" in the myth, which moves the date into the spring, etc,

Why would Judean shepherds not have been out with sheep in December? They still are today, so I doubt anything has changed. Remember the area has a considerable variety of microclimates, and as the grass is green and edible and the grazing is good in the region at this time there is no good reason to doubt it. Of course I think December 25th was chosen because of a very simple symbolic reason (see Augustine et al) - the conception was believed to be on the traditional date of Adam's birthday, March 25th, so he was born December 25th by logical inference -- but there is nothing in our knowledge of 1st century Judean agricultural practice to suggest the date is unreasobale in terms of the pastoral details. I'll dig out references if you are interested, as I often see variations of this claim, and it is factually inaccurate.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/
He does have his "Lovecraft" side to him. What a memory!
Just take your pick. Probably either "Deconstructing Jesus" or "The Incredible shrinking son of Man". I have not read any of them but I have listened to every "Bible Geek" podcast many times. To me his reasoning just makes sense, and everyone who tries to debunk his research just screams at him with no real evidence or anything to support their claims except the bible.
I don't argue this religion stuff, because I really don't care one way or the other. I just find it interesting purely as history, much as Price does.

Cheers, I'll have a look. It's primarily a historical question to me as well as it happens, as I'm better qualified to address the historical issues than any other academically. I hope one day to catch up with him - we hare a strong interest in HPL studies - and ill try to buy The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man if I can find a copy. I'm very conversant with the journal literature though, and with the history of 1st century Judea. Maybe I can find on e of his recordings and listen to it as well - I'll have a look.

cj x

 

[Dysphemist]

Are the scriptures they have found (the originals) been dated back to 50-100 CE (or around the time, when they are supposedly written)? Is there any proof that tells us that someone didn't come 300 years later and realised that people had begun to follow the story of Jesus only through oral history (I assume that very few people knew how to read at the time) and thought that it could really catch on. So he took up Christianity, created scriptures to give the religion a solid foundation, took on aspects of the oral histories/stories of christ and the OT, and then used Christianity as a way of controlling his people.

I know, it's a long shot... and could only be supported if the scriptural texts we have can't be dated to around 100 CE. Makes for a nice, and relatively believable, story.

 

[Olowkow]

Cheers, I'll have a look. It's primarily a historical question to me as well as it happens, as I'm better qualified to address the historical issues than any other academically. I hope one day to catch up with him - we hare a strong interest in HPL studies - and ill try to buy The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man if I can find a copy. I'm very conversant with the journal literature though, and with the history of 1st century Judea. Maybe I can find on e of his recordings and listen to it as well - I'll have a look.

cj x

Yes, you can find many of his Bible Geek podcasts free on the Infidel Guy feed on ITunes. I have downloaded all of them from the IG website, but a lot of them can be gotten free. I find his approach to be very refreshing and rational. He is of course an atheist who used to be a fundamentalist, I guess you know. He has two Phd's in biblical studies, and just loves to research the bible.

Bob Price is not about talking anyone out of their beliefs, he just wants to get at what the bible really is saying, and what can reasonably be inferred from all the scriptures. His approach is purely literary, and with a scientific method.

 

[Olowkow]

Are the scriptures they have found (the originals) been dated back to 50-100 CE (or around the time, when they are supposedly written)? Is there any proof that tells us that someone didn't come 300 years later and realised that people had begun to follow the story of Jesus only through oral history (I assume that very few people knew how to read at the time) and thought that it could really catch on. So he took up Christianity, created scriptures to give the religion a solid foundation, took on aspects of the oral histories/stories of christ and the OT, and then used Christianity as a way of controlling his people.

I know, it's a long shot... and could only be supported if the scriptural texts we have can't be dated to around 100 CE. Makes for a nice, and relatively believable, story.

My understanding is that there is so little proof of anything that it is frustrating even to honest believing bible scholars. The arguments are so circular, and contradictory, and then Tacitus, Josephus, etc., are supposed to be the "clinchers", but I get the impression that this is really just window dressing. The problem is that no one really knows who most of the authors really were, if I remember correctly. Very complicated issue it seems.

 

[cj.23]

Are the scriptures they have found (the originals) been dated back to 50-100 CE (or around the time, when they are supposedly written)?

In short - nope - the earliest manuscripts surviving are much later. This is entirely normal for almost all historical texts of the period, from Tacitus to Caesar, as the originals deteriorated and were lost, so we rely on copies, with textual variants.

These wiki articles give you the dates of the earliest fragments and I would say the article is generally sound, though all dates are rounded to 50 years and in fact scholars may vary considerably even beyond that --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials

also very useful
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html

Where we have multiple fragments, and we have many, many fragments of the NT, we can reconstruct something of the development of the texts, which is how modern academic Bible translations have been improved over older ones. Look at the footnotes for the textual variants, or have a look at a good academic commentary to see how much scholarship exists on these issues. I'll give a few examples if you like?

Is there any proof that tells us that someone didn't come 300 years later and realised that people had begun to follow the story of Jesus only through oral history (I assume that very few people knew how to read at the time) and thought that it could really catch on.

Literacy rates are unknown but from 10 to 50% has been suggested. I can discuss how much we know about who could read and in what languages if you are interested?

So he took up Christianity, created scriptures to give the religion a solid foundation, took on aspects of the oral histories/stories of christ and the OT, and then used Christianity as a way of controlling his people.

We know this did not happen because we have extensive citations from what now comprises the NT from the early Church, from as early as the Bishop Clement who wrote about 90. Scholars have expended tremendous effort on dating the New Testament books, though in most cases the confidence intervals are large, but the seven Authentic Pualines are generlly regarded as written from 52 to 65. The fact other authors who can be precisely dated cite passages however is how we can tell
I think 5 volumes of the Biblia Patristica which cirte quotes and allusions in the early Church Fathers are now complete -- see http://www.biblindex.mom.fr/

I know, it's a long shot... and could only be supported if the scriptural texts we have can't be dated to around 100 CE. Makes for a nice, and relatively believable, story.

It's a good theory, and certainly the stories did circulate in oral form before being committed to writing, but much earlier. Still worth checking these things - a sensible idea, but nope.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Yes, you can find many of his Bible Geek podcasts free on the Infidel Guy feed on ITunes. I have downloaded all of them from the IG website, but a lot of them can be gotten free. I find his approach to be very refreshing and rational. He is of course an atheist who used to be a fundamentalist, I guess you know. He has two Phd's in biblical studies, and just loves to research the bible.

Bob Price is not about talking anyone out of their beliefs, he just wants to get at what the bible really is saying, and what can reasonably be inferred from all the scriptures. His approach is purely literary, and with a scientific method.

I'm an ex-atheist with a background in Biblical Crit, and 1st century history then Literary Criticism & Cultural Theory so I should get where he is coming from. Amusingly I find ST Joshi another great Lovecraftian cited on his website as well. Unfortunately he also cites Acharya, whose people i have spent many long hours arguing with. I don't have ITunes so I will have to order the book -- I have never come across him in mainstream Biblical Crit, nor indeed heard of the Journal of Higher Criticism before which puzzles me rather, but his name does come up a lot on this forum and cocasionally on Dawkins place, so I shall read what he has to say. We both share as I say other interests, so be fun to catch up on his work in this field.

cj x

 

[Olowkow]

I'm an ex-atheist with a background in Biblical Crit, and 1st century history then Literary Criticism & Cultural Theory so I should get where he is coming from. Amusingly I find ST Joshi another great Lovecraftian cited on his website as well. Unfortunately he also cites Acharya, whose people i have spent many long hours arguing with. I don't have ITunes so I will have to order the book -- I have never come across him in mainstream Biblical Crit, nor indeed heard of the Journal of Higher Criticism before which puzzles me rather, but his name does come up a lot on this forum and cocasionally on Dawkins place, so I shall read what he has to say. We both share as I say other interests, so be fun to catch up on his work in this field.

cj x

Well he did not really think very highly of Acharya S., and I agree in general, but he did do a show with her (on the IG program), and she seemed to have tamed down a bit. Nonetheless, he is in a whole different realm from the "purely controversial", he is a true scholar. You may or may not agree with him, but he is not just some nut case.

ETA: By the way, Itunes is free, and all the podcasts are free as well. Just go to Apple.com and it is pretty easy to use.

 

[cj.23]

Oh dear. Robert Price has found himself in some truly disreputable company here -
http://www.answers.com/topic/journal-of-higher-criticism
I have time for Neusner, and like Carrier's writings, but this is something of a who's who in terms of contributors of people whose work could be kindly categorized as "very courageous" if you know Yes Minister or shall we say "fringe". Doherty and Wells were the main creators of Jesus Mythicism, and Theirings ideas are rather interesting - Neusner is certainly respected, but fiercely critiqued by a lot of other scholars, mainly EP Sanders as I recall. I note alsio the journal is publsiuhed by and supported by an Atheist organisation, and indeed Prometheus Books seem to publish most of Price's NT books. Still, I need to read what he has to say to seehow much I agree or disagree -- but I am more cautious now than I was.

cj x

 

[Olowkow]

If you like Carrier, you should like Price.

 

[cj.23]

Well he did not really think very highly of Acharya S., and I agree in general, but he did do a show with her (on the IG program), and she seemed to have tamed down a bit. Nonetheless, he is in a whole different realm from the "purely controversial", he is a true scholar. You may or may not agree with him, but he is not just some nut case.

I don't doubt Robert Prices' scholarly integrity for a moment. I do wonder fi it might not be better served by publishing in the major New Testament studies and Biblical Criticism journals though. Still I have not looked through his complete list of publications - I glanced and some are very sound - though I recall tearing in to an article of his named Apocryphal Apparitions I think on a supposed interpolation in 1 Corinthians 15, which I felt was extremely flawed. Still I like and respect the guy from his other work, so I'll read his book. One should never judge someone by the company they keep - I used to work on the TV show Most Haunted after all.

cj x

 

[manofthesea]

Wasn't Peter, one of his apostles, killed in Rome? That's where some type of evidence would be, I think. BTW, Peter means rock, so that wasn't his original name either. Was Peter's existence firmly established? And did he just try and fix blame on a fictional character before they hung him upside down or whatever?

Or what of the other apostles, there may be evidence buried with them.

I like the recent story of Jesus being Caesar's and Cleopatra's son, and that being the reason for his fleeing inside Egypt. That would make him the adopted son of Mary and Joseph.

 

[Breckmin]

Response Part one

[Reminder to self: need to look into that Gospel of Mary Magdalene that the church decided was irrelevant at some point. Sounds interesting.

I'm sure it will be anything but the Canon of the N.T. scriptures. If you say
which canon, I am referring to the Council of Nicea or the Council of Trent.
I will be happy to see you submit to either one and acknowledge any of those books.

Oh, why? Because it was impossible that a good catholic boy would do something so basically yucky? Or because Paul hated the idea of sex altogether? Or because he obviously knew he was god and didn't need the come-down? Or because he was an apocalyptic preacher who knew that the end was coming, possibly as late as next week?

Catholic boy is a red herring. The Unique Son of God Who was born to die
and set the example and not pro create is the real issue. Everything else
is a red herring. IOW, there was a PURPOSE for Yeshua. It was not to
have sex and make a baby, but to die for the sins of the world.

Say again? Doesn't have blood - is that a requirement for transcendency? Does that mean ghostly? "a body that they some day believe that they will be raised in also"? Who's on first here?

It is just a theory. The belief is extrapolated for the reference to flesh and
bone and that blood is temporary life. It is a theory about a spiritual body
that is eternal and distinguishes it from a temporary body that has blood.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, a king. That is what they obviously all were waiting for, and what they tried o accelerate, until he Romans put the quietus on that in 79 CE. Then it was reinterpretation and catch-up time for the Christians, if not for he stiff-necked Jews.

have to check what I said

And then again, maybe the irony is better after a couple of thousand years. Perhaps it was all a put-on that just happened to be at the right place at the right time. What could be more ironic than that? Perhaps the Ownership is vacant? "That there are billions who will have to be separated from God because of logical imperfection"? But he can't do that, can he? Make a logical imperfection? Oh, wait - it's all their fault, isn't it, having such bad bloodlines and all.

This is evasive to the role of decisions and disobedience, as well as a mis-
understanding about evil. The imperfection is the result of disobedience.
This is based on choice. God did not create us perfect. That is impossible.
When He looked at creation before the fall of mankind He simply said it was
"good" which does not mean "perfect" like the English word does.

What a miserable excuse for a reason to do anything. You are using an argument to consequences to sell us Christianity (positive and negative, forsooth), then you cite it as a fallacy. Some irony there.

You misunderstood argumentum ad consequentium. This is in reference to
finding fault with an argument based on its consequences. Just because
an argument has consequences for not accepting it, does not mean you
can point to those consequences and claim that it is based on fear. It is
irrelevent to whether or not it is true. It is true or false on its own merit
and evidence, regardless of how horrible the consequences will be for you
not accepting it.

Not even the Catholic church (outside he bishopric of Turin) stands behind the shroud; only some nut cases in Colorado Springs. The Talmud is definitely not history, except in outline. All those texts that support each other, none of which - zero, as far as scholars can find, were written before 30 years following Jesus' death) including the apocryphal and other early gospels, the writings of he church fathers, including the heretics - how about the ones that conflict?

There is a wise system for accepting and rejecting text that are in
conflict, just as they did at the Coucil of Nicea.

Is cherry picking allowed in your church?

Only if you use logic as a hermeneutic and contextual exegesis and you
pray for "sight" which is a gift from God's Spirit. Anytime you read the
scriptures, you should pray that God would "open your eyes and hears
(spiritual ones) to see clearly the things He would teach you by divine
revelation.

A cherry has a seed. That seed can grow into a whole other tree.
Question everything.

Hmmmm... sounds a lot like down-home Calvinism, or Zwingli, to me. Martin Luther made a statement I read yesterday about someone performing mass murder and blasphemy, but if he really believed, real hard, he could be saved. Not ask forgiveness, mind you - just believe.

Calvinism fails in many aspects as does Lapsarianism (Supra, Infra, Sub, Ante), because it wrongfully looks at the Infinite Creator from a three dimensional time space contiuum. Besides, the demonic spirits or deceiving
spirits believe what is true also, and they tremble. They do not repent.
Repentance is important, but it is a complete turn around in the "mind"
and an experience of spiritual regeneration, it is NOT the result of works.
Works are the PRODUCT of salvation, but never a means to salvation.
Abraham "believed" God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
His works, only justified him before men, NOT God. His FAITH (trusting
God) justified Him before the Lord. I believe that you misunderstood
what Luther was saying. He was talking about saving faith which will
produce good works and repentence.

You do realize, I suppose, that both as a former RC and more lately as an atheist, you look like a cult to me, don't you?

Your prior circumstances make you a strong candidate for becoming an
evangelical Christian. There are many many evangelical Christians who
could not be satisfied until they had a loving relationship with their Eternal
Father in heaven. I know of many RC's who became atheists before they
became Christians. Close friends. I probably would have become an
atheist too if I was raised by nuns who did not encourage me to question.

If you do not question, then how will you ever know "why" you believe
what you believe, and whether it is incorrect or not. You have to test
what you believe in order to know that it can hold up to skepticism.

I was once liberal. I was an evolutionist. I was surprised that it could
possibly be wrong. The road to dissecting these systems is to go back
to basic assumptions. You have to systematically dissect these invalid
assumptions based on circular reasoning and "thousands" and even tens
of thousands of inductions.

Oh? St. Paul would have been surprised that perhaps his most strident teaching should be discarded. I never understood how Protestantism stood against him on that.

not sure what this is in response to. I'll have to check my first post before
responding.

Or perhaps a creator/creature relationship, or a master/slave one? Or, perhaps, something more capitalist, like boss/janitor?

Within the closed set of assumptions of Christianity it is clearly a Father/
adopted children relationship. We are adopted into an eternal church body
or bride, and we are indeed His (the Eternal Father's) children. You can
use Shepherd/sheep analogy. We are all slaves to something wether we
realize it or not. Certainly the logical Master (Owner of the Universe) and
the "willing" slave (humble as a child) applies, but that is your "choice."
You are a creature of volition, and God desires your true love back to Him.
In true love, you can't say "yes" if you can't say "no." We are not created
as puppets. We make decisions. Make a good one.

I guess, if you put it that way, I'll have to pass. Sorry. I don't suppose you'll just let me be, now, will you?

You do not have to read what I write in response. I am not at your
computer to force you to do anything. Your logical trust in God is your
own. Keep questioning.

It is good to question.

 

[Breckmin]

An honor and a priviledge

.
Sad.
For what you are about to receive here, be truly thankful.

It is indeed an honor and a priviledge to post in this forum. I am indeed
thankful.

What can a person really receive typing at his computer??

Know this. Where ever the post is made, where ever the post is read,
or where ever the post will be many years from now...

I will not be there.

Question everyting. It just might lead you in the right direction.

~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Part 2.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, a king. That is what they obviously all were waiting for, and what they tried o accelerate, until he Romans put the quietus on that in 79 CE. Then it was reinterpretation and catch-up time for the Christians, if not for he stiff-necked Jews.

This is incongruous to the point of "Who" should be that King, and Who should
rule Israel? Certainly no man is worthy to rule God's chosen nation except
God Himself. Read Isaiah 9:6. There are plenty of other O.T. passages
if you want them like Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 43 where only God is Savior, and
there is NO Savior besides God. Messiah would have been God in the flesh,
Immanuel (God among us). I am truly sorry that some Jews missed it. The
Messianic Jews did NOT miss it.

Oh? St. Paul would have been surprised that perhaps his most strident teaching should be discarded. I never understood how Protestantism stood against him on that.

Paul's letter to the church as Ephesus (Ephesians 1) makes this clear.
It is complete consistent with Paul's soteriological teachings so I do
not see where you are coming from.

~Michael

Merry Christmas to everyone at JREF forums!!!

 

[m_huber]

This thread certainly has attracted an interesting crowd...

Just wanted to point out that any telling of Jesus' birth story would have to come from Jesus' mother, who was telling a story about how she got pregnant while she was engaged to a guy who was not the father (Not a credible witness). The birth story has nothing to do with the rest of the gospels, and isn't cited anywhere else in the NT in any other instance I can think of off the top of my head. It has many earmarks of being a later addition, already covered in this thread. The remainder of the story of Jesus focuses on a brief period at the end of his life.

I find it easy to think that there must have been a rabbi named Jesus, as it was a common name, and easy to think that such a rabbi may have been influenced by eastern ideas, allowing for a break from traditional Judaism. But all of the miracles Jesus performs in scripture are similar to those found in other religious stories, many of which rehash the miracles of Elijah (including the loaves and fishes). This may have been a man who knew how to put on a good show (Uri Geller?) or it may have been a man who taught well and did no miracles, but had miracles later attributed to him (William Wallace?). Overall, though, Jesus strikes me as being most similar to King Arthur. There may have been some king like Arthur, but there is no way that he did the things he is written to do (physical evidence that should be there isn't). Made up or embellished, it doesn't make too much difference, now. Not to the 2 billion followers.