Is the bible historically accurate?

[James the Persian]

How about Matthew? Various traditions had Matthew preaching in places as far flung as Ethiopia, Persia, Parthia, Isidore, and Macedonia. The traditions relate preposterous accounts of attempts that were made to kill him, which he, like John, miraculously escaped from. In one tradition, a jealous king tried to have Matthew burned alive, but the flames flew out, took the form of a dragon, and curled around the king.

There are few apostles that can even be validated to have existed by historical record (I believe we can support Peter, John, and James).

I've never looked into the Tradition regarding St. Matthew (though I'd point out that Persia and Parthia are actually the same place), so I can't be very specific on him in particular, though I can list the method of martyrdom of all of the Twelve (excepting John as he was not martyred). These are:

Peter - crucified
Andrew - crucified
James (the Greater) - beheaded
Philip - crucified
Bartholomew - crucified, flayed and behaded
Thomas - stabbed with spears
Matthew - burned alive
James (the Lesser) - crucified
Jude - crucified
Simon - crucified
Matthias - stoned and beheaded

What sort of historical recirds would you expect to validate these martyrdoms? The only people who would have likely been terribly interested are the christians and they did record them - though I should think you would consider such sources invalid.

James

EDIT:
From doing a little research on Matthew, it appears that Tradition has him being martyred in Persia (Parthia). The alternative tradition of his martyrdom occurring in Ethiopia appears to be a confusion between Matthew the Evangelist and the Apostle Matthias (who is believed to have been martyred in Ethiopia. I'd note that both Ethiopia nad Persia were countries which were evangelised early in Christian history.

 

[JerryL]

But can his existance and death be validated outside of "Christian tradition"? Alternately, can the sources of Christian tradition be established and validated?

Who would have been interested. The people who killed him and his relatives both coem to mind.

According to Greek tradition, Heraclies died and got bored so broke out of Tartarus. I can't validate that historically either.

 

[Smoke]

Many of Paul's books were not written by the SUpposed Paul,

About half.

we don't even know for sure if Paul existed.

What's your basis for saying so?

Whoever Paul was, he had never heard of the supposed earthly CHrist.

The factual Jesus isn't very important to Paul's theology, but it's nonsense to suppose he had never heard of him. His letter to the Galatians makes it clear that he was in contact (and conflict) with people who had known Jesus.

 

[James the Persian]

But can his existance and death be validated outside of "Christian tradition"?

Why should it need to be? If, for instance, a figure in Japanese history was only attested to in Japanese sources, would you demand foreign ones also before accepting that existance?

Alternately, can the sources of Christian tradition be established and validated?

It probably depends on what exactly you mean (Tradition is a very broad category) and what exactly you are willing to accept as vaildation. You seem to throw out all sources written by Christians, which is liable to leave you with little to go on.

Who would have been interested. The people who killed him and his relatives both coem to mind.

The relatives would quite likely have been Christians and those who killed the Apostles may or may not have kept records of such things. Would, for instance, Ethiopian pagans or Brahmans have kept such records? I really don't know. I do know that the Romans did not necessarily keep detailed records of the executions of those they considered criminals.

According to Greek tradition, Heraclies died and got bored so broke out of Tartarus. I can't validate that historically either.

That, being in the realm of myth, is hardly comparable to a historical claim by the early Church. Saying a certain man lived and was killed in some manner is not at all the same as the example you give of Heracles (and i wouldn't discount the existence of Heracles either, just because of later mythological accretions. He could well have been a historical figure).

James

 

[Smoke]

Paul was propogating or creating the mythology of the Christian faith which included, at that time, the belief that James was Jesus's brother.

How likely is it that a mythological brother was created for James during James' own lifetime, without any of his contemporaries catching on?

Certainly Paul could not have risen to the power he weilded by disputing as lies the claims of the founders of the religion.

His own epistle to the Galatians leaves no doubt that he was in open conflict with the family and disciples of Jesus.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How likely is it that a mythological brother was created for James during James' own lifetime, without any of his contemporaries catching on?

I'd say about 50/50.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But can his existance and death be validated outside of "Christian tradition"? Alternately, can the sources of Christian tradition be established and validated?

Who would have been interested. The people who killed him and his relatives both coem to mind.

According to Greek tradition, Heraclies died and got bored so broke out of Tartarus. I can't validate that historically either.

Heraclies didn't write any letters or found any associations, groups, or churches.

 

[sojourner]

Why do skeptics assume that the writers of the NT letters, gospels and Acts did so with the intent of "inventing" something out of whole cloth, or with the intent of deception? Why not assume that they wrote honestly and with good intentions?

 

[JerryL]

Why should it need to be? If, for instance, a figure in Japanese history was only attested to in Japanese sources, would you demand foreign ones also before accepting that existance?

You haven't given me enough information to answer that question. Do you accept the account of Heraclies escaping Tartarus based on Greek tradition?

It probably depends on what exactly you mean (Tradition is a very broad category) and what exactly you are willing to accept as vaildation. You seem to throw out all sources written by Christians, which is liable to leave you with little to go on.

I'm not sure that I can offer criteria, though I could certainly offer examples of things which I feel would constitute validation. An authenticated warrant for execution from Pilate would be ideal; but I'm sure we could manage consensus with less.

The relatives would quite likely have been Christians and those who killed the Apostles may or may not have kept records of such things. Would, for instance, Ethiopian pagans or Brahmans have kept such records? I really don't know. I do know that the Romans did not necessarily keep detailed records of the executions of those they considered criminals.

You are propping a straw man in saying that I have denounced all Christians as sources. As to whether the romans would record an execution; that would depend on who was excuted. A citizen would have been recorded. A slave would not have been. I would expcet that, if there was someone that thousands thought was God was executed, it would have made mention; and simmilarly some of the apostles are alledged to have been quite well known evangelists.

If Pat Robertson or Ben Franklin was executed, do you think it would have been mentioned in literature?

That, being in the realm of myth, is hardly comparable to a historical claim by the early Church. Saying a certain man lived and was killed in some manner is not at all the same as the example you give of Heracles (and i wouldn't discount the existence of Heracles either, just because of later mythological accretions. He could well have been a historical figure).

So we can discount any source that says a man died and rose from the dead?

Jesus may have been an historical figure. I find insufficient evidence to conclude that he actually was.

 

[JerryL]

How likely is it that a mythological brother was created for James during James' own lifetime, without any of his contemporaries catching on?

I lack sufficient statistical information to answer your question on prabability. I don't find it inconciveable that a follower would claim relationship to whom he followed... even if that person were imaginary.

His own epistle to the Galatians leaves no doubt that he was in open conflict with the family and disciples of Jesus.

But he does not dispute the tennants. Paul's gospel is clearly a manifestation of his more conservative leanings when compared to the original followers of the way such as Peter. I've no doubt that there were strong ideological differences; but to attempt to denounce statements of fact would likely create more of a schizm than Paul's credability could bear.

It's one thing to denounce what Peter or John said Jesus ment, it's another to dispute with a proclaimed brother, affirmed by proclaimed eye-witnesses, whom his relations are.

Heraclies didn't write any letters or found any associations, groups, or churches.

...that we know of... nor did Matthew.

 

[JerryL]

Why do skeptics assume that the writers of the NT letters, gospels and Acts did so with the intent of "inventing" something out of whole cloth, or with the intent of deception? Why not assume that they wrote honestly and with good intentions?

A wild-***-guess on my part:

Peter was a pacifist / reformer who created a sect of Judaism. In order to grant validity to the new order, he claimed it was from God; and in order to avoid being stoned for herecy he claimed to be repeating his (convineiently dead) teacher's lessons.

John was either a cohort or an early and opinionated deciple.

Paul comes along signifigantly later and takes over. He has his own opinions about how the church should run (why he has Timothy write his own version of the gospel).

I suspect that Peter drey from many sources in writing Jesus. Certainly some of the gospel accounts are almost word-for-word from Ezekiel. The story of walking on the water is unusually similar to Jonah, the character is surprisingly similar to an earlier Yeshua (who was hung from a tree, as psalms accidently says about Jesus). And the general resurrection myth was common at the time.

Certainly, it would not have been a change from how the bulk of what is now the BIble was written. The Jews likely came from the Hittites, and the Bible has them destroied by order of God and the Jews coming from Egypt. When the Persians conquer the Babylonians and the Zoroastrian dualists start visiting, the Jews suddenly have Shatan (he who opposes) in the form of a serpent, patron symbol of Babyon.

 

[Smoke]

I'd say about 50/50.

Why?

I lack sufficient statistical information to answer your question on prabability. I don't find it inconciveable that a follower would claim relationship to whom he followed... even if that person were imaginary.

Very little is inconceivable -- but it's unlikely. It's even more unlikely that someone as combative as Paul would have acknowledged the kinship so freely if there had been any doubt. If there had been so much of a whisper -- so much as a "Well, he says he's Jesus' brother ... " -- I feel certain that Paul would have made the most of that doubt: something along the lines of "James, who calls himself the Lord's brother."

But he does not dispute the tennants. Paul's gospel is clearly a manifestation of his more conservative leanings when compared to the original followers of the way such as Peter.

I don't see anything at all conservative about Paul's gospel; it was very radical from a Jewish point of view. He makes it clear that the gospel of the more conservative Jewish Christians is "another gospel" (Galatians 1.6) and curses those who teach it (Galatians 1.8).

I think it's likely that James and the early Jesus community at Jerusalem shared beliefs more closely resembling those of the Ebionites than those of the Pauline Christians, and that Paul's entire Christology -- which is based entirely on the mystical Christ who had appeared to him, and not on the factual Jesus and his teachings -- is a radical departure from the tradition of that early community. I think Ed Jones is right on the money when he describes Paul as "The Stranger." (PDF file: Paul: The Stranger.)

It's one thing to denounce what Peter or John said Jesus ment, it's another to dispute with a proclaimed brother, affirmed by proclaimed eye-witnesses, whom his relations are.

And Paul boasts that he "withstood [Peter] to his face," but gives no indication that he was so bold before James, and Acts -- indisputably from the hand of a Pauline Christian -- takes great pains to portray Paul as submissive to James; in fact, it shows him as more deferential to James than Paul depicts himself as being. There's a good chance that James' was an unassailable figure, both because of his personal piety and because of his undoubted relationship to Jesus.

Remember that Paul was an early convert to Christianity, and was probably baptized within a very few years of Jesus' death -- perhaps as little as a year after -- and would certainly (according to his own account) have had contact with James within no more than a decade after Jesus' death. It's virtually certain that at such early dates there were still living witnesses who would have known Jesus, and would have been in a position to dispute James' relation to him, had there been any doubt about it.

How likely is it today that a previously unknown person could successfully present himself as the brother or nephew of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe and assume leadership of the Lubavitcher Hasidim? The chances are virtually nil.

But does it follow from the fact of Jesus' existence that the gospels are factual? Of course not. It's impossible to reconcile their accounts without ridiculous contortions; we don't know the identity of any of the authors; Matthew and Luke are plainly based, in part, on Mark; and John is almost certain to be the latest and to have been written by a Gentile. There's no reason to believe that any of them were written by eyewitnesses.

 

[Smoke]

Why do skeptics assume that the writers of the NT letters, gospels and Acts did so with the intent of "inventing" something out of whole cloth, or with the intent of deception? Why not assume that they wrote honestly and with good intentions?

Those who forged the pseudo-Pauline epistles and the pseudo-Petrine epistles can hardly be said to have done so "honestly."

The authors of the gospels and Acts may have had more honest intentions, but that supposition doesn't do anything to add to their credibility as historical sources.

 

[JerryL]

Very little is inconceivable -- but it's unlikely. It's even more unlikely that someone as combative as Paul would have acknowledged the kinship so freely if there had been any doubt. If there had been so much of a whisper -- so much as a "Well, he says he's Jesus' brother ... " -- I feel certain that Paul would have made the most of that doubt: something along the lines of "James, who calls himself the Lord's brother."

I don't find it unreasonable. I don't know what is likely as I don't know Paul personally. Neither do you, nor does either of us have a great dealof information regarding Paul's motives nor indocterination. You seem to be assuming a great deal.

I don't see anything at all conservative about Paul's gospel; it was very radical from a Jewish point of view. He makes it clear that the gospel of the more conservative Jewish Christians is "another gospel" (Galatians 1.6) and curses those who teach it (Galatians 1.8).

Paul is anti-sex, where the other gospels are not. Paul is anti-marriage where the other gospels are not. Paul has the only explicit condemnation of "effeminates" in the new testement. Paul seems to be tryign to bring Christianity more in line with Judaism than the far more liberal Peter of John.

I think it's likely that James and the early Jesus community at Jerusalem shared beliefs more closely resembling those of the Ebionites than those of the Pauline Christians, and that Paul's entire Christology -- which is based entirely on the mystical Christ who had appeared to him, and not on the factual Jesus and his teachings -- is a radical departure from the tradition of that early community. I think Ed Jones is right on the money when he describes Paul as "The Stranger."

I agree with the general tennor here, that Paul was the outsider that came in to make a revised version of Christanity with himself at it's head. Rather like King Henry with the Anglican church, or John Smith and Mormonism.

And Paul boasts that he "withstood [Peter] to his face," but gives no indication that he was so bold before James, and Acts -- indisputably from the hand of a Pauline Christian -- takes great pains to portray Paul as submissive to James; in fact, it shows him as more deferential to James than Paul depicts himself as being. There's a good chance that James' was an unassailable figure, both because of his personal piety and because of his undoubted relationship to Jesus.

I'm not really sure how the social pecking order relates to the topic. You offer another reson why Paul woudl not dispute James's claim to be the brother of Jesus... that of Jameses relative social position to Paul.

It's virtually certain that at such early dates there were still living witnesses who would have known Jesus, and would have been in a position to dispute James' relation to him, had there been any doubt about it.

Unelss there was no Jesus, in which case there would be no living witnesses to dispute it.

Also, prove that no one disputed the claim. You are relying on an absence of evidence. If we are going to do that, then disproving Jesus is simple.

How likely is it today that a previously unknown person could successfully present himself as the brother or nephew of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe and assume leadership of the Lubavitcher Hasidim? The chances are virtually nil.

Are you claiming that Christianity was well established before James showed up? I don't think that is at all true.

 

[SoyLeche]

or John Smith and Mormonism.

*cough* Joseph *cough*

 

[Smoke]

I don't find it unreasonable. I don't know what is likely as I don't know Paul personally. Neither do you, nor does either of us have a great dealof information regarding Paul's motives nor indocterination. You seem to be assuming a great deal.

I haven't even addressed Paul's motives. I was speaking of his methods, which can be inferred from his extant writings.

Paul is anti-sex, where the other gospels are not. Paul is anti-marriage where the other gospels are not. Paul has the only explicit condemnation of "effeminates" in the new testement. Paul seems to be tryign to bring Christianity more in line with Judaism than the far more liberal Peter of John.

But Judaism isn't anti-sex or anti-marriage; marriage and sexual relations are positive duties of any Jew who's capable of carrying them out. There were celibate Jews in the first century, but the mainstream Jewish community has never embraced celibacy. Paul's (and Jesus') views on marriage were not at all in line with mainstream Judaism.

Unelss there was no Jesus, in which case there would be no living witnesses to dispute it.

Did James arise from the sea or something? Was there no one who knew James or had any knowledge of his background? And what would be the advantage for James in claiming to be the brother of a non-existent teacher?

Also, prove that no one disputed the claim. You are relying on an absence of evidence. If we are going to do that, then disproving Jesus is simple.

We have no evidence at all that anyone disputed the claim. I'm just going by the evidence that we have.

Are you claiming that Christianity was well established before James showed up? I don't think that is at all true.

Of course not. I wouldn't even say that Christianity was well established during James' lifetime. But I do think that Jesus had followers, and that some of them were still interested in Jesus' teachings after he died. It's likely that at least some of those followers would have been in a position to know whether James was Jesus' brother or not.

But if there was no Jesus, what would be the point of James claiming to be Jesus' brother? If there was no Jesus, the claim would have been meaningless, and would have posed a stupid risk for James in that the claim would have been relatively easy to disprove. And if there was a Jesus, what's the likelihood that he was influential enough for there to be some advantage in claiming to be his brother, yet had no family, friends or followers who would have known whether James' claim was true or not? Alternately, if Jesus' family was so irrelevant to the early movement that his followers knew little or nothing about his family, why would his brother have been universally recognized as the leader of the movement?

Your scenario requires that James be a person whose background is unknown, that there be some advantage in his claiming to be the brother of a non-existent person, and that there be a group of people for whom the claim to kinship with a person they've never heard of is meaningful. I don't find it at all credible.

Peter was a pacifist / reformer who created a sect of Judaism. In order to grant validity to the new order, he claimed it was from God; and in order to avoid being stoned for herecy he claimed to be repeating his (convineiently dead) teacher's lessons.

But does Jewish Law, in fact, call for the stoning of heretics? And would a heretic be any less a heretic if he claimed to be advocating the (heretical) teachings of another person?

 

[JerryL]

I haven't even addressed Paul's motives. I was speaking of his methods, which can be inferred from his extant writings.

Of course you did when you said he would have challenged james because he's confrontational.

But Judaism isn't anti-sex or anti-marriage; marriage and sexual relations are positive duties of any Jew who's capable of carrying them out. There were celibate Jews in the first century, but the mainstream Jewish community has never embraced celibacy. Paul's (and Jesus') views on marriage were not at all in line with mainstream Judaism.

So then you agree he's conservative afterall?

I can whip out Deut if you want examples of male homosexuality, adultry, and virgins having sex being stoneable offence; and I can pull a gospel with Jesus preventing a stoning for adultry.

Did James arise from the sea or something? Was there no one who knew James or had any knowledge of his background? And what would be the advantage for James in claiming to be the brother of a non-existent teacher?

A place in the hiearchy. Ceaser claimed to be decended from a non-existant God, and Plato claimed to be taught by someone who may well have been non-existant. Da (of the Heaven's Gate cult) claimed we were all related to non-existant Raliens and that they had taught him. David Korresh claimed also to be related to Jesus (to be his second coming in fact).... the list goes on and on.

Your inference that no one would make such a claim is counterindicated by the legions of people making such claims.

We have no evidence at all that anyone disputed the claim. I'm just going by the evidence that we have.

We have planty of gospels which dispute the claim. They are respectively referred to as "gnostic". Just as we have plenty of people refuting that Jesus established his divinity by virtue of the fact that they were not Christians.

Where is your evidence disputing Zeus or Heraclies? Where is your support for contemporaries of Heraclies arguing that he didn't exist?

Of course not. I wouldn't even say that Christianity was well established during James' lifetime. But I do think that Jesus had followers, and that some of them were still interested in Jesus' teachings after he died. It's likely that at least some of those followers would have been in a position to know whether James was Jesus' brother or not.

That's predicate on your assumption that Jesus actually existed, which is the fact under dispute.

if there was no Jesus, what would be the point of James claiming to be Jesus' brother? If there was no Jesus, the claim would have been meaningless, and would have posed a stupid risk for James in that the claim would have been relatively easy to disprove.

Exactly the opposite. If there were not Jesus, it would have been impossible to disprove.

If there was a Jesus, I have no reason to dispute James being his brother... why are you making an "if there was a Jesus" argument at all in this regard?

But does Jewish Law, in fact, call for the stoning of heretics? And would a heretic be any less a heretic if he claimed to be advocating the (heretical) teachings of another person?

Plato thought so. Though the case here is more one of establishing crejulity. Only God could override God. If a living Peter had claimed to be God, that would have been tested. But by claiming communication from a now-inaccessable (so it can't be tested) God; he creates (obviouly) fertile grounds for changing the beliefs.

 

[logician]

The xian bible is a book of teachings, not history, one should only take it for such.

 

[gnostic]

According to Greek tradition, Heraclies died and got bored so broke out of Tartarus. I can't validate that historically either.

LOL:jester3:

I've never heard of this one.

 

[noob]

though I should think you would consider such sources invalid.

Why should these sources be considered completely invalid. You would need to carefully consider the motives of the Christians... Wouldnt you?