Jesus Story IS NOT Original.....

[AxisMundi]

Dear believers,

The notion that the first gospel was written within 40 years of Jesus' death and therefore within a reasonable time frame is not a valid argument, rather it is an exercise in circular reasoning.

The unknown author of Mark places his story 40 years prior to the time of his writing. At this point, penmanship is the only support for the author's use of that time and place. To claim that the author is writing within a reasonable time frame after Jesus' supposed death in order to validate the gospel as written within a reasonable frame is in turn using the gospel to validate itself. The logic takes us around in circles.

This argument that the first gospel was written within forty years of the supposed death of Jesus in order to support the validity of the gospel is used time and time again by the Jesus is historical supporters and it's about time it was put to rest. It's making me dizzy, so please stop it.

Sincerely, dogsgod

I've always though it quite telling that this Christ figure, a lettered Rabbi, never once set pen to paper.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, you can dismiss any flawed data, quite readily as well. The only source claimed to be contemporary to your Christ figure is easily disproved, as I and others have shown. Said paragraphs are quite easily dismissed as anything but later forgeries inserted into said writings by people desperate to have their religion validated.

Al other sources date from well after, and are mere hearsay and do not provide any substantiation.

Actually said paragraphs are not quite easily to dismiss if one is knowledgable on the subject. The fact is this, the majority of scholars, the experts on the subject, do not dismiss the references. They do not state that they are forgeries. The common consensus on the subject is that the longer reference did in fact contain some reference to Jesus, but that at a later time, someone added additional information into the reference.

More so, the shorter passage is nearly universally accepted as authentic. The Wiki link both of us have mentioned states this to be true as well. So unless you provide some evidence for your position, it simply is unfounded.

As for hearsay, that is what much of history is. To rule out hearsay in history would rule out the mass of ideas that we have. You might as well throw out our newspapers, history books, etc. Even in a court of law, hearsay is allowed at times. The hearsay argument simply is ignorant and a cop out.

9/11 conspiracy theorists can make quite compelling arguments too, until you closely examine their argument. That is when one sees the inherent flaws that dismantles their arguments.

If tat is true with the fact that their existed a historical Jesus, then please, point that out.

 

[fallingblood]

There is some controversy surrounding said findings.

They are not widely accepted among the scientitific community.

Then prove it. Show some information that shows that Nazareth did not exist in the first century. The only evidence that I've seen yet is that we have no literary records to Nazareth during that time. You need more than that.

 

[fallingblood]

Others ahve brought the problems with the short passage to the table.

Then show it. I've explained why it is most likely authentic. Show what it isn't.

While individual literacy was few and far between, written languages can be found far and wide, as can the ltierate who wrote in abundance.

And your examples prove my point. They recieved some mention, why didn't Jesus.

You didn't really think about that did you? They received some mention after the fact, in the same manner that Jesus did. Again, after the fact, in the same manner that Jesus did.

 

[fallingblood]

Dear believers,

The notion that the first gospel was written within 40 years of Jesus' death and therefore within a reasonable time frame is not a valid argument, rather it is an exercise in circular reasoning.

The unknown author of Mark places his story 40 years prior to the time of his writing. At this point, penmanship is the only support for the author's use of that time and place. To claim that the author is writing within a reasonable time frame after Jesus' supposed death in order to validate the gospel as written within a reasonable frame is in turn using the gospel to validate itself. The logic takes us around in circles.

This argument that the first gospel was written within forty years of the supposed death of Jesus in order to support the validity of the gospel is used time and time again by the Jesus is historical supporters and it's about time it was put to rest. It's making me dizzy, so please stop it.

Sincerely, dogsgod

It's fine if you don't understand history. It's fine if you don't understand how things work in an oral culture, especially one with a very low literacy rate.

But maybe you want to consider Tiberius. The majority of his biographies are written some 75 or more years after his death. Yet, historians still rely on them to a part.

Really, what you are doing here is making a special exception for Jesus.

 

[Riverwolf]

see: Jesus vs. Krishna: similarities

Similarities between two god-men saviors: Jesus and Krishna

Let's take a look at that list:

#6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God.

Close, but wrong. Krishna is referred to as the full avatar of Vishnu(that is, Sri Hari descended directly, with all His potency, to earth), and some sects see Krishna as the Supreme Being, beyond even Vishnu.

7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.

"Sent" is hardly the word I'd use to describe Krishna's descent.

8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.

Again, close but wrong. Vishnu is only listed second, but in Vaishnavism, is the Highest. Plus, the "Hindu Trinity" is nothing like the Christian Trinity.

13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter.

Wrong. Krishna's adoptive father was a cowheard.

18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father.

No. Krishna was born to human parents. In the Bhagavatam, His biological father was a human named Vasudeva. Heck, one of His names is Vaasudeva, which can translate to "son of Vasudeva."

Granted, Krishna is believed to have been born without sexual intercourse (though his parents had had sex before), but rather through exchanging of thoughts. But that's still quite different from Jesus's story.

21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.

First thing stated that's a real similarity.

27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.

Verses, please, 'cause I don't recall that detail.

30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.

And a major difference in this part is that Baby Krishna killed all of Kamsa's assassins, and eventually Kamsa himself. Jesus never did that.

41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.

Verse, please.

56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."

...When was Krishna ever identified as that?!

58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."

And Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami was instructed by his guru to "roar like a lion." What's the point?

60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."

When did Krishna claim that?

64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth.

In Krishna's case, in the form of other lives, as per the Vedic teaching of reincarnation; with Jesus it was FAR more vague.

66: Both were "without sin."

Have you READ the story of Krishna?!

72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.

So was Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Caitanya, some consider Satya Sai Baba as such, etc. and all these people are all real.

76, 77, & 78: They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

So are most Supreme God Concepts.

83, 84, & 85: Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured "all manner of diseases."

...Krishna's first "miracles" were done when he was still a baby, and I don't recall it having to do with healing someone.

86 & 87: Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.

I don't recall Krishna ever raising the dead, but I'm honestly not sure.

101: Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.

Yeah... that's kinda what most Spiritual Teachers have done throughout the ages.

109 to 112: Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.

Krishna was actually quite the womanizer. :yes: But I'd NEVER describe Krishna as "meek"; He was quite the warrior when He needed to be.

115: Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.

And how is Krishna, in India, five-thousand years ago, supposed to meat a Gentile woman?

121 to 127: Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.

...I don't recall Krishna celebrating a last supper, but Gandhi forgave his enemies, too.

128 to 131: Both descended into Hell, and were resurrected. Many people witnessed their ascensions into heaven.

I think Krishna actually left this world in secret, but I'm not entirely sure. But I'm pretty sure he went right back to Vaikuntha.

Sorry, but according to my knowledge of Krishna's story, that source is bogus. What else you got?

 

[dogsgod]

It's fine if you don't understand history. It's fine if you don't understand how things work in an oral culture, especially one with a very low literacy rate.

But maybe you want to consider Tiberius. The majority of his biographies are written some 75 or more years after his death. Yet, historians still rely on them to a part.

Really, what you are doing here is making a special exception for Jesus.

Consider telling us why historians rely on the biographies of Tiberius. hint > wiki.

 

[fallingblood]

Consider telling us why historians rely on the biographies of Tiberius. hint > wiki.

Consider actually debating this subject.

 

[Oberon]

The notion that the first gospel was written within 40 years of Jesus' death and therefore within a reasonable time frame is not a valid argument, rather it is an exercise in circular reasoning.

That's only part of the argument. Other pieces of evidence include a study of genre, a study of the material (e.g. from formgeschichte onwards, where every pericope has been examined to death, and yet there is probably still more to be culled from the sources we have), research into orality, and so forth. All of these are important, and especially so when they are considered together. Writing about a mythical person is nothing special. However, when one considers this work while looking at other works of the time, all the sudden things change. We do have evidence that biographies of real people could contain miracles and myths, even when the person being documented was alive only a (relatively) short while ago. What we don't have is evidence of a type biographical or even allegorical historical fiction. To assert that Mark somehow invented Jesus or set a mythical character into what would have been considered to be a historical text is to assert that Mark was something of a literary genius. Not only is this an a priori unlikelihood, studies of ancient genres show that the gospels have a great deal more in common with ancient biographies than with mythic texts. Of course, in order to understand this, one would have to
1) not already have made up their minds to the point of being determined not to review evidence contradicting one's theory
2) actually look at scholarship
3) maybe even read some primary texts

A lot to ask for, I know.

At this point, penmanship is the only support for the author's use of that time and place.

What?

To claim that the author is writing within a reasonable time frame after Jesus' supposed death in order to validate the gospel as written within a reasonable frame is in turn using the gospel to validate itself.

Thank goodness the scholarship on dating the gospels isn't based on this. Otherwise we would have a problem.

It's making me dizzy, so please stop it.

It might help if you stopped creating problems by creating strawmen.

 

[Oberon]

I've always though it quite telling that this Christ figure, a lettered Rabbi, never once set pen to paper.

There is no indication he was lettered, and in Jesus' day rabbi meant something quite different.

 

[dogsgod]

Consider actually debating this subject.

I am. Why are you comparing the biographies of Tiberius with the gospels? Do you really want to go there?

 

[dogsgod]

I've always though it quite telling that this Christ figure, a lettered Rabbi, never once set pen to paper.

There is no indication he was lettered, and in Jesus' day rabbi meant something quite different.

Luke 4:16
He [Jesus] went to Nazareth where he had grown up. He went to the meeting house as he always did on the Sabbath day. He stood up to read.

 

[dogsgod]

That's only part of the argument. Other pieces of evidence include a study of genre, a study of the material (e.g. from formgeschichte onwards, where every pericope has been examined to death, and yet there is probably still more to be culled from the sources we have), research into orality, and so forth. All of these are important, and especially so when they are considered together. Writing about a mythical person is nothing special. However, when one considers this work while looking at other works of the time, all the sudden things change. We do have evidence that biographies of real people could contain miracles and myths, even when the person being documented was alive only a (relatively) short while ago. What we don't have is evidence of a type biographical or even allegorical historical fiction. To assert that Mark somehow invented Jesus or set a mythical character into what would have been considered to be a historical text is to assert that Mark was something of a literary genius. Not only is this an a priori unlikelihood, studies of ancient genres show that the gospels have a great deal more in common with ancient biographies than with mythic texts. Of course, in order to understand this, one would have to
1) not already have made up their minds to the point of being determined not to review evidence contradicting one's theory
2) actually look at scholarship
3) maybe even read some primary texts

A lot to ask for, I know.


What?


Thank goodness the scholarship on dating the gospels isn't based on this. Otherwise we would have a problem.


It might help if you stopped creating problems by creating strawmen.

Was that supposed to be some kind of rebuttal to the circular reasoning employed on these boards ad nauseum?

 

[dogsgod]

.



Dear Sherlock,

How do you know the gospels were actually written 40 years after the supposed death of the supposed Jesus?

Sincerely,
Just inquiring





Dear Just inquiring,

Thank you for your question although it's an easy one to answer, scholars figure the first gospel was written in 70CE and it says so right in the gospels that there was this Jesus and that he died during the time of Pilate. We just did the math.

Try to make the question tougher next time,

Sincerely,
Sherlock

 

[Oberon]

.
Dear Sherlock,

How do you know the gospels were actually written 40 years after the supposed death of the supposed Jesus?

Sincerely,
Just inquiring






Dear Just inquiring,

Thank you for your question although it's an easy one to answer, scholars figure the first gospel was written in 70CE and it says so right in the gospels that there was this Jesus and that he died during the time of Pilate. We just did the math.

Try to make the question tougher next time,

Sincerely,
Sherlock

Only, that isn't at all how scholars date any gospel. You simply betray ignorance of the scholarship. Again. The work on dating the gospels is massive, and the techniques are not at all unique to biblical scholarship, but are found in classical scholarship and other fields which deal with literary periods for which we have texts which give cultural context, historical context, linguistic and similar clues, etc, as to when they were written (early and medieval european history, for example).

 

[dogsgod]

Only, that isn't at all how scholars date any gospel. You simply betray ignorance of the scholarship. Again. The work on dating the gospels is massive, and the techniques are not at all unique to biblical scholarship, but are found in classical scholarship and other fields which deal with literary periods for which we have texts which give cultural context, historical context, linguistic and similar clues, etc, as to when they were written (early and medieval european history, for example).

Only that wasn't the question.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There is no indication he was lettered, and in Jesus' day rabbi meant something quite different.

Luke 4:16-17

4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

 

[fallingblood]

Luke 4:16
He [Jesus] went to Nazareth where he had grown up. He went to the meeting house as he always did on the Sabbath day. He stood up to read.

First, Rabbi still meant something different. The fact that the verse says he read does not mean he was a Rabbi. The term Rabbi really didn't take on significance until after 70 C.E., when Rabbinical Judaism took center stage. Rabbi during the first century was more of a term for a teacher. It did not require that person to be able to read or to write.

As for the actual verse, at most, it meant he could read. That does not translate to him being able to write. The two did not go hand in hand in ancient times. Not to mention, the scripture had a high chance of being in Hebrew. If this is true, then there would be little reason to assume he could write, or even had an extensive knowledge of Hebrew anyway.

Even if it was in Greek though, it still wouldn't matter. All that can be assumed from that verse is that Jesus had a working knowledge of religious reading.

That isn't even covering the idea that various scholars believe that the verse is not accurate anyway.

 

[dogsgod]

He could calm the seas, he could raise the dead, he could heal the blind, but we dare not assume he could write just because he could read, let's not push the envelope beyond the questionable truth of that verse.

 

[fallingblood]

He could calm the seas, he could raise the dead, he could heal the blind, but we dare not assume he could write just because he could read, let's not push the envelope beyond the questionable truth of that verse.

And you realize that those are mythical attributes, most likely attributed to him afterwards. If there is going to be a debate, please keep it logical. Stop using these tired cop-outs.