Jesus Story IS NOT Original.....

[Riverwolf]

Well it's been repeated a zillion times by Oberon and fallingblood on this forum, I don't know how you could have missed it, and if it hasn't been repeated on this particular board you can be sure it will be.

In case you haven't noticed, I don't participate too much in most of the debate threads; I focus only on a couple.

Could you provide some instances? Otherwise, I'm disinclined to believe you.

And your point is?

I was pointing out that you made a mistake. Just like you pointed out that I had.

 

[dogsgod]

"The Good Shepherd"

 

[Riverwolf]

"The Good Shepherd"

...That's completely random.

EDIT: Or at least cryptic, which from what I've seen, is a debating no-no.

 

[dogsgod]

Helios surrounded by 12 virgins, 12 disciples, and 12 signs of the zodiac

Center image showing Jesus with disciples and zodiac

 

[dogsgod]

...That's completely random.

EDIT: Or at least cryptic, which from what I've seen, is a debating no-no.

You don't see the Greek influence? Were the gospels not written in Greek as well as the epistles?

 

[Riverwolf]

Helios surrounded by 12 virgins, 12 disciples, and 12 signs of the zodiac

How do you know that's Helios?

Center image showing Jesus with disciples and zodiac

You don't see the Greek influence? Were the gospels not written in Greek as well as the epistles?

What's your point?

 

[fallingblood]

Well it's been repeated a zillion times by Oberon and fallingblood on this forum, I don't know how you could have missed it, and if it hasn't been repeated on this particular board you can be sure it will be.

Actually, what has been repeated is a statement from Bart D. Ehrman. He stated, and it was quoted here, that we have more information about Jesus than all but a few historical figures. That does not mean we necessarily know more about him than any other figure. It just means that we have a wealth of information about him; however, much of it is repeated.

 

[fallingblood]

1. And where are the sources form people who DON'T worship your Christ? Basing research on your bible (hardly a credible source to begin with), and more Christian writings merely makes for very bad science.

Your first mistake is that I don't worship Christ. I don't believe that Jesus was Christ. I don't believe he is the Messiah, savior or anything like that. I don't believe in the resurrection.

The second mistake is that it is not my Bible. I'm not a Christian. I don't think the Bible is infallible. I know that it has mistakes.

So you are flawed in two of your ideas right from the start. Also, Bart D. Ehrman, a leader on the subject, is an agnostic. Many have argued that John Dominic Crossan is an atheist. I think two are enough here since the defense you are using is illogical at best.

2. I am not going to sit here and try to note my personal research that spanned a half a decade some thirty years ago. What I offered in the wiki link are recognized problems with your research and that of your scholors. That is all that is needed to substantiate my position.

Accept you once again fail to notice that the wiki link says virtually nothing about the second shorter reference. That is because it is universally accepted as authentic. Also, the problems they do highlight for the other reference do not discredit it entirely. It allows scholars to see what was there before hand.

Either way, you haven't provided anything supporting your position here.

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually, what has been repeated is a statement from Bart D. Ehrman. He stated, and it was quoted here, that we have more information about Jesus than all but a few historical figures. That does not mean we necessarily know more about him than any other figure. It just means that we have a wealth of information about him; however, much of it is repeated.

It's a statement that I'm forced to disagree with until I actually see what that information is.

After all, there have been hundreds upon thousands of historical characters from the last couple centuries alone whom we know far more about than Jesus. Now factor in the knowledge we have on all the historical characters from the last 1000 years.

Unless we can have at the very least a full biography of the historical Jesus, I'm forced to disagree with Mr. Ehrman's statement.

 

[fallingblood]

So you agree with the author that nothing of that possible Jesus was ever written of and that we know absolutely nothing about him.

To quote the author,
But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing.

Fallingblood,


Well then, we are in complete agreement.


.

I never said I agreed with the author. Just pointing out that he does not state that there is no way that Jesus could not have existed. He accepts that a historical Jesus may have existed. That is what I pointed out.

The fact is, we have done a lot in the last 90 years in regards to Jesus research. More so, as I already pointed out, everything this author stated had already been debunked before he decided to repeat the same ideas.

 

[fallingblood]

Many of Josephus' works are legitimate, yes. However, each and every mention of Christ has been shown to be later forgeries.

Can you prove that to be true? The fact is, that is not what the wiki link stated. It also isn't what scholars have been saying for the last 20 years or even more.

 

[fallingblood]

It's a statement that I'm forced to disagree with until I actually see what that information is.

After all, there have been hundreds upon thousands of historical characters from the last couple centuries alone whom we know far more about than Jesus. Now factor in the knowledge we have on all the historical characters from the last 1000 years.

Unless we can have at the very least a full biography of the historical Jesus, I'm forced to disagree with Mr. Ehrman's statement.

Now, I do have to agree with that. In another thread, Angellous pointed information about the statement, and I can see that Ehrman is incorrect, or I may have misquoted him. I have to go back and check what he exactly stated.

I think he may have just been stating that we have a plethora of evidence supporting Jesus and he used the common tactic of exaggeration.

 

[dogsgod]

Why should we discuss a paper that was based on shoddy research that had already been shown to be wrong before this guy decided to repeat the same incorrect information?

I'm calling your bluff. Present the information in question and show us how it has been refuted.

 

[dogsgod]

I never said I agreed with the author. Just pointing out that he does not state that there is no way that Jesus could not have existed. He accepts that a historical Jesus may have existed. That is what I pointed out.

Then quote him accepting that an historical Jesus may have existed. I know you can't, but quote him anyways, and no, paraphrasing is not quoting.

The fact is, we have done a lot in the last 90 years in regards to Jesus research. More so, as I already pointed out, everything this author stated had already been debunked before he decided to repeat the same ideas.

We? OK Mr. Research, merely saying it doesn't make it so. What's been debunked? You've offered your personal opinion, now how about some facts to back it up.

 

[fallingblood]

Then quote him accepting that an historical Jesus may have existed. I know you can't, but quote him anyways, and no, paraphrasing is not quoting.

You've already quoted it. Why should I waste my time showing it again after you and I have both shown it.

We? OK Mr. Research, merely saying it doesn't make it so. What's been debunked? You've offered your personal opinion, now how about some facts to back it up.

Give me a little time and I will finish my debunking of that article.

 

[dogsgod]

You've already quoted it. Why should I waste my time showing it again after you and I have both shown it.

I did not quote him accepting that an historical Jesus may have existed, you must be dreaming, but I can understand your hesitation to provide a quote of him accepting that an historical Jesus may have existed because it doesn't exist.

 

[fallingblood]

Here is my rebuttal to the article presented.

Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all.

As of 1906, when Schweitzer produced his classic on the subject, the ablest of scholars accepted that Jesus in fact existed. The divinity, the miracles, and the supernatural were taken into question, but it was agreed that a historical Jesus did in fact exist and was the background to the Gospel stories. As of 2010, there are only a handful (I know of possibly two or three) that deny that Jesus existed. I see no reason to believed that in just about 20 years, scholars began denying Jesus and then decided to retract that believe and accept a historical Jesus did exist. The quote above is baseless.

and it [Christianity] is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind.

Here we have a clear sign of the authors bias. This does not discredit him, but it does mean that we have to take what he says with a grain of salt.

We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible.

The only time that the author has even relatively right is that Mark was written around 70 C.E. However, that is not the earliest possible date that have been assigned. Some traditional Christian scholarship puts the writing a full 20 years earlier. Luke and Matthew are dated closer to 80-90 C.E. and John around 90-95 C.E.

There is possibly a fragment of Mark that was discovered at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is labeled 7Q5; however, as it has not been proven to be a fragment of Mark, it can be ignored. It is important though in the sense that since 1922, we have had to large finds: the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library.

The earliest extant fragment of a canonical New Testament Text is papyrus P52 (Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). It is 125 C.E., plus or minus 25 years. This puts a record of John (which this papyrus contains) at earliest, 100 C.E. That is just a mere 10-15 years after the Gospel was written. Again, this is information that the writer did not have available to him either.

This author simply did not have our current resources available to him, and thus did not have the best handle on the dating. I'm not covering this too much as the dates that I posted are nearly universally accepted by scholars, and I think most on this forum also accept those dates.

The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

This is not actually true. We know that Papias of Hierapolis mentioned Mark earlier (he actually accredited Mark with the writing of that Gospel. As he died around 155 C.E. we know he mentioned it before 180.

the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ-

Here he is talking of the Gospels. However, again, he is wrong. Paul mentions Jesus around 50-60 C.E.

How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died

Again, quite wrong. Mark was around 70 C.E. The earliest extent fragment of the Gospels is 125 C.E. plus or minus 25 years. Still, at latest, earlier than a hundred and fifty years.

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic--the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek--every one of them

This is actually logical. Greek was a major language. It was the language spoken in the larger cities. Jesus may have even spoken some Greek as it was most likely necessary if he worked in Sepphoris, which the dominant language would have been Greek.

We know Jews around that time were speaking Greek. That is why we have a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures called the LXX. So it is not illogical that the Gospels were written in Greek, as that was a common language during that time, and we know that many Jews knew how to read it. So many that it was deemed necessary to translate the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. Even some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Greek.

but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology

Here he is talking about the village of Nazareth. The problem is that we know that Nazareth existed. We have archeological evidence that it did in fact exist. One source should be enough: 2,000-Year-Old Home Found in Jesus' Hometown - World Watch - CBS News This was reported in many different sources.

the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence?

The life of Augustus, was much the same. Augustus himself begins talking of his life not until much later. His birth story was similar to that of Jesus. Then we have nothing. The fact is, it was common in ancient times to not mention individuals until they became important. We see what we would expect to see with Jesus.

The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty.

The problem is that we have evidence that the Romans massacred religious leaders and their followers on many different occasions. Josephus actually tells us this. There is one story Josephus tells of where over 500 Jews were crucified in one day, in order to terrorize the city, and there ended up being no wood left for the purpose.

More so though, it was because of Pilate's harsh reaction against a Samaritan messianic movement that he was even recalled to Rome. The fact is, the Romans were not always fair. And we know Pilate certainly wasn't.

Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings.

And here we get again to the tired argument. That since Paul mentions little about Jesus in his Epistles, he must not have known anything about Paul. The fact is, Paul mentions little about himself in the Epistles. So does that mean he knew nothing of himself? Not at all.

Here is the problem. The Epistles are letters. These letters were written for very specific reasons. They were to answer questions and address problems that arose after Paul had visited a church. The key point, after he had already visited that church.

Paul was preaching in different areas. We don't have any of his messages that he actually preached to these audiences. Instead, we have records of later follow up with these audiences. Again, it was follow up. Meaning he had already taught these individuals something.

Also, we don't even have all of the letters that Paul wrote. We are missing some. What they contain, we can not know for sure. We can only be sure that we are missing some. L. Michael White goes in depth about this in his book From Jesus to Christianity.

It is illogical to assume that Paul knew little about Jesus because we don't see them in his letters. The reason being that the letters were serving specific reasons. To answer questions that were arising in the churches he had already preached in.

Paul does mention certain ideas about Jesus though. That he was born of the flesh. That he was crucified. And that he had a brother. That enough shows that he in fact believed that Jesus existed.

Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy

We are talking about the first century. Miracles were much more common. Even today, if we look at some places in India and Asia, we see so called miracles.

The earliest accounts of magic tricks that we have were considered miracles. Simply, they didn't know better.

 

[fallingblood]

And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus.

We don't have any writings about James, the brother of Jesus, outside of the Bible, until Josephus. He wrote the account after the fact by some 30 years. We have no accounts of John the Baptist, outside the Bible, until Josephus, again, well after the fact. We have little record of the various faith healers and supposed Messiahs running around Palestine, and those happen after the fact as well. We know very little about first century Judaism. Why should we expect that they would have written about a Jewish peasant who was considered a failed Messiah by the vast majority of Jews? Why should we expect writings during the time of Jesus if the literacy rate is only around 1-3%, and was reserved for the elite? Why should we except anything to be written about Jesus until later if we are dealing with an oral culture. The answer is that we shouldn't. We have what is logical. It is actually amazing we have so much written about him in such a short time. Even Tiberius, an emperor of Rome, only had one biography written about him by someone connected by him. The other three were written much later. It is only logical.

In this work, the historian made no mention of Chris

The author is talking about Josephus. The author is again wrong. Josephus mentions Jesus twice. One of the references is debated, the other is universally accepted as authentic.

There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world.

And the authors admission that a historical figure of Jesus could have existed. I think that says enough.


I didn't cover everything in the article because I simply don't want to waste the time. I have shown that the author is incorrect on many points. He did not have records we do today. There is no reason to take him seriously if he has so many flaws in his argument.

And again, as I stated when this article was first linked to, there is no mention of Jesus being created from other god men. That was something the OP stated.

 

[fallingblood]

I did not quote him accepting that an historical Jesus may have existed, you must be dreaming, but I can understand your hesitation to provide a quote of him accepting that an historical Jesus may have existed because it doesn't exist.

Actually you did, and now I did what you asked. And yes, I quoted where he said it is possible that a historical Jesus did exist.

 

[dogsgod]

Actually you did, and now I did what you asked. And yes, I quoted where he said it is possible that a historical Jesus did exist.

No, you didn't. Your comprehension skills are lacking.