An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
Let's talk about the bible and history.
Loren Michael
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Soo... before I left America... rather, when I was in the U.S., I attended a, let's say, philosophical discussion at a Christian coffee house on a semi-regular basis. Before I left, I got into the standard heated discussion about God's (in particular, the Christian one) existence. I'm pretty firmly in the "almost certainly not" camp, as I'm sure many of you know. I'm also agnostic in regards to Jesus' existence.
Anyways, we decided to resolve the issue of God's existence via e-mail. My friend sent me a freaking huge e-mail that was basically a cut-and-paste of a bunch of different articles, most of which I have argued against via e-mail. the last one though, which I guess was a chapter from a book, was a freaking doozy, in terms of extraordinary length. So I bring it to you people for discussion. If I can actually get the attention span together to throw up a reply to my friend, I might, but at the very least, here's the next religious thread. Warning, this thing is massive, so I'm going to post it in chunks. I'll try to clean up the formatting as much as possible, too.
Mission for this thread: debate and discuss the historical reliability of the bible, particularly regarding the existence of Jesus and/or his miracles, giving particular regard for what this chunk of text has to say, but I totally forgive you for not reading the whole damn thing because Christ there's a lot of it. Please at least try to go over at least a little bit of it, though.
Chunk one of several:
Anyways, we decided to resolve the issue of God's existence via e-mail. My friend sent me a freaking huge e-mail that was basically a cut-and-paste of a bunch of different articles, most of which I have argued against via e-mail. the last one though, which I guess was a chapter from a book, was a freaking doozy, in terms of extraordinary length. So I bring it to you people for discussion. If I can actually get the attention span together to throw up a reply to my friend, I might, but at the very least, here's the next religious thread. Warning, this thing is massive, so I'm going to post it in chunks. I'll try to clean up the formatting as much as possible, too.
Mission for this thread: debate and discuss the historical reliability of the bible, particularly regarding the existence of Jesus and/or his miracles, giving particular regard for what this chunk of text has to say, but I totally forgive you for not reading the whole damn thing because Christ there's a lot of it. Please at least try to go over at least a little bit of it, though.
Chunk one of several:
WHY I BELIEVE THE NEW TESTAMENT IS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE
Gary Habermas
The credibility of Scripture is certainly a multifaceted issue. In this chapter, I will examine one specific angle-whether the New Testament is a historically reliable document. Topics such as precise textual issues, genre considerations, specific critical methodologies, scientific concerns, and the doctrine of inspiration are beyond the focus here.1 Instead, I will examine several areas that indicate that the New Testament speaks accurately when it makes historical claims that can be checked. I will begin by assessing some conventional areas of consideration.
CUSTOMARY STRATEGIES
Typically, defenses of the reliability of the New Testament have emphasized several items: the superior manuscript numbers, early dating of these copies, as well as the authoritative authorship and dating of the original compositions. I will respond briefly to each, since they all still have an important part to play. Since these defenses have received much attention, however, I will only highlight a number of relevant issues.
Manuscript Evidence
To start, are we even able to ascertain whether the text of the Bible is that of the original authors? While this issue relates strictly to the reliability of the text rather than to the historicity of its contents, the issue is still important in the overall scheme of this discussion. Generally, several qualities enhance manuscript value, assisting textual scholars in arriving at the best reading of the original text. The strongest case is made when many manuscripts are available, as close in time to the original autographs as possible. Wide
geographical distribution of the copies and their textual families are likewise crucial. Of course, having complete texts is essential.
In light of these criteria, the New Testament is the best attested work from the ancient world. First, it has by far the greatest number of existing manuscripts. Ancient classical works are attested to by very few full or partial manuscripts-usually less than ten. In comparison, over five thousand full or partial Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist. Thousands of additional texts exist in other languages, especially Latin. This overwhelming number of copies yields a much stronger base for establishing the original text.
The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs." The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine.
Authorship and Date
The above described quality of manuscript data shows that the New Testament manuscripts were careful copies of what the original authors produced. However, this does not necessarily guarantee that the contents of these writings are historically accurate. The traditional strategy has been to argue that the Gospels and Acts were written by eyewitnesses, or those writing under their influence, thereby ensuring as much as possible the factual content. A somewhat more cautious position is that these five books were at least influenced by eyewitness testimony.
Evangelical scholars often date each of the synoptic Gospels ten or so years earlier than their critical counterparts, who usually prefer dates of roughly A.D. 65-90. There is widespread agreement on placing John at roughly A.D. 95. This places the writing of the manuscripts thirty-five to sixty-five years after the death of Jesus, close enough to allow for accurate accounts.
Perhaps the most promising way to support the traditional approach is to argue backward from the Book of Acts. Most of this book is occupied with the ministries of Peter and Paul, and much of the action centers in the city of Jerusalem. The martyrdoms of Stephen (7:54-60) and the apostle James (12:1-2) are recorded, and the book concludes with Paul under arrest in Rome (28:14-31). Yet Acts says nothing concerning the deaths of Paul and Peter (mid-60s A.D.) or James, Jesus' brother (about A.D. 62). Moreover, accounts of the Jewish War with the Romans (beginning in A.D. 66) and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) are also strangely absent. Further, the book ends enigmatically with Paul under house arrest,
without any resolution to the situation.
Gary Habermas
The credibility of Scripture is certainly a multifaceted issue. In this chapter, I will examine one specific angle-whether the New Testament is a historically reliable document. Topics such as precise textual issues, genre considerations, specific critical methodologies, scientific concerns, and the doctrine of inspiration are beyond the focus here.1 Instead, I will examine several areas that indicate that the New Testament speaks accurately when it makes historical claims that can be checked. I will begin by assessing some conventional areas of consideration.
CUSTOMARY STRATEGIES
Typically, defenses of the reliability of the New Testament have emphasized several items: the superior manuscript numbers, early dating of these copies, as well as the authoritative authorship and dating of the original compositions. I will respond briefly to each, since they all still have an important part to play. Since these defenses have received much attention, however, I will only highlight a number of relevant issues.
Manuscript Evidence
To start, are we even able to ascertain whether the text of the Bible is that of the original authors? While this issue relates strictly to the reliability of the text rather than to the historicity of its contents, the issue is still important in the overall scheme of this discussion. Generally, several qualities enhance manuscript value, assisting textual scholars in arriving at the best reading of the original text. The strongest case is made when many manuscripts are available, as close in time to the original autographs as possible. Wide
geographical distribution of the copies and their textual families are likewise crucial. Of course, having complete texts is essential.
In light of these criteria, the New Testament is the best attested work from the ancient world. First, it has by far the greatest number of existing manuscripts. Ancient classical works are attested to by very few full or partial manuscripts-usually less than ten. In comparison, over five thousand full or partial Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist. Thousands of additional texts exist in other languages, especially Latin. This overwhelming number of copies yields a much stronger base for establishing the original text.
The result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wenham asks why it is that, in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs." The resulting text is 99.99 percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian doctrine.
Authorship and Date
The above described quality of manuscript data shows that the New Testament manuscripts were careful copies of what the original authors produced. However, this does not necessarily guarantee that the contents of these writings are historically accurate. The traditional strategy has been to argue that the Gospels and Acts were written by eyewitnesses, or those writing under their influence, thereby ensuring as much as possible the factual content. A somewhat more cautious position is that these five books were at least influenced by eyewitness testimony.
Evangelical scholars often date each of the synoptic Gospels ten or so years earlier than their critical counterparts, who usually prefer dates of roughly A.D. 65-90. There is widespread agreement on placing John at roughly A.D. 95. This places the writing of the manuscripts thirty-five to sixty-five years after the death of Jesus, close enough to allow for accurate accounts.
Perhaps the most promising way to support the traditional approach is to argue backward from the Book of Acts. Most of this book is occupied with the ministries of Peter and Paul, and much of the action centers in the city of Jerusalem. The martyrdoms of Stephen (7:54-60) and the apostle James (12:1-2) are recorded, and the book concludes with Paul under arrest in Rome (28:14-31). Yet Acts says nothing concerning the deaths of Paul and Peter (mid-60s A.D.) or James, Jesus' brother (about A.D. 62). Moreover, accounts of the Jewish War with the Romans (beginning in A.D. 66) and the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) are also strangely absent. Further, the book ends enigmatically with Paul under house arrest,
without any resolution to the situation.
Loren Michael on
0
Posts
Chunk two of Jesus there is a lot of this stuff.
Extra-biblical sources are another avenue worth pursuing when determining whether the New Testament texts speak reliably concerning historical issues. While less frequently used by scholars, a number of ancient secular sources mention various aspects of Jesus' life, corroborating the picture presented by the Gospels. The writers of these sources include ancient historians such as Tacitus, Suetonius, and Thallus. Jewish sources such as Josephus and the Talmud add to our knowledge. Government officials such as Pliny the Younger and even Roman Caesars Trajan and Hadrian describe early Christian beliefs and practices.
Greek historian and satirist Lucian and Syrian Mara Bar-Serapion provide other details. Several nonorthodox, Gnostic writings speak about Jesus in a more theological manner. Overall, at least seventeen non-Christian writings record more than fifty details concerning the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, plus details concerning the earliest church. Most frequently reported is Jesus' death, mentioned by twelve sources. Dated approximately 20 to 150 years after Jesus' death, these secular sources are quite early by the standards of ancient historiography. Altogether, these non-Christian sources mention that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, performed miracles, led disciples, and that many thought he was deity. These sources call him a good teacher or a philosopher and state that his message included conversion, denial of the gods, fellowship, and immortality. Further, they claim he was crucified for blasphemy but rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples, who were themselves transformed into bold preachers.
A number of early Christian sources also report numerous details concerning the historical Jesus. Some, such as the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, date from A.D. 95-110, or just ten years after the last New Testament book. Information of a different sort can be derived from archaeological artifacts. While few provide direct confirmation of Jesus, they do provide helpful background information. Places such as the Bethesda and Siloam pools, the foundations of Herod's temple, possible locations of Pilate's Praetorium, and the general vicinity of Golgotha and the Garden tomb all enlighten modern readers. Much information has been gained about ancient Jewish social customs, and many details have been revealed concerning the cities, towns, coinage, commerce, and languages of first-century Palestine.14 A.N. Sherwin-White has furnished a remarkable amount of background information corroborating many details of the trial of Jesus, as well as other legal scenes in the New Testament.
In a few cases, more specific data is available. For example, the Latin inscription "Titulus Venetus" helps to illumine Augustus's census. A Latin plaque mentions "Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judaea." The bones of a first-century A.D. crucifixion victim, Yohanan, tell us much about the gruesome spectacle of crucifixion. The Nazareth Decree, perhaps circulated by Emperor Claudius between A.D. 41 and 54, threatens tomb robbers with death. In summary, those who use traditional strategies to support the historical reliability of the New Testament assert that superior manuscript evidence shows we have essentially what the authors wrote. By linking closely the authors and composition dates to the events themselves, it is argued that the writers were in the best position to know what actually occurred. Additional data are provided by extra-biblical and archaeological sources, showing that, when these details are checked, the New Testament fares well.
A surprising amount of traditional data corroborates the life and teachings of Jesus. Many questions remain, to be sure, but the available evidence indicates that believers are on strong ground when reporting the general reliability of the New Testament reports of the historical Jesus.
In a few cases, more specific data is available. For example, the Latin inscription "Titulus Venetus" helps to illumine Augustus's census. A Latin plaque mentions "Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judaea." The bones of a first-century A.D. crucifixion victim, Yohanan, tell us much about the gruesome spectacle of crucifixion. The Nazareth Decree, perhaps circulated by Emperor Claudius between A.D. 41 and 54, threatens tomb robbers with death.
In summary, those who use traditional strategies to support the historical reliability of the New Testament assert that superior manuscript evidence shows we have essentially what the authors wrote. By linking closely the authors and composition dates to the events themselves, it is argued that the writers were in the best position to know what actually occurred. Additional data are provided by extra-biblical and archaeological sources, showing that, when these details are checked, the New Testament fares well.
A surprising amount of traditional data corroborates the life and teachings of Jesus. Many questions remain, to be sure, but the available evidence indicates that believers are on strong ground when reporting the general reliability of the New Testament reports of the historical Jesus.
edit: People also believed in dragons, witches, and sea monsters. There's historical accounts and everything.
Scholarship in recent years, however, has moved in other directions. While not necessarily denying the traditional arguments just discussed, scholars are frequently less interested in the question of the New Testament's reliability. Nonetheless, among the contemporary tendencies to which critics gravitate, there are still many gems to be mined-treasures that point in additional ways to the historical trustworthiness of the New Testament. Some of the prizes turn out to be powerful tools. Four such approaches are outlined below.
Critical Rules
The trend among recent critical scholars is not to accept the reliability of the Gospels in a wholesale manner. Rather, the tendency is to apply certain analytical principles to ascertain which individual texts or portions of texts have the greatest likelihood of being historically accurate. In so doing, these biblical scholars are following the trend set by historians in their own examination of ancient texts.17 Following is a brief inventory of some of the rules that apply to written sources.
(1) Early evidence is strongly preferred, and in reference to Jesus, data from A.D. 30 to 50 would be exemplary.18 If these sources can be drawn from (2) the accounts of eyewitnesses to the occurrences, this would provide two of the strongest evidences possible. Historian David Hackett Fischer dubs this last criterion "the rule of immediacy" and terms it "the best relevant evidence."
(3) Independent attestation by more than one source significantly strengthens a factual claim from antiquity. As historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable."20 Even the highly skeptical Jesus Seminar emphasizes items "attested in two or more independent sources."
Some details are enhanced by additional criteria. (4) The principle of embarrassment, negative report, or surprise reveals disparaging remarks made by the author about himself, another person, or event toward which the author is friendly and has a vested interest.22 (5) Precisely the opposite can also provide a different sort of evidence: when an antagonistic source agrees about a person or event when it is not in the source's best interests to do so. Maier even thinks that "such positive evidence within a hostile source is the strongest kind of evidence... If Cicero, who despised Catiline, admitted that the fellow had one good quality-courage-among a host of bad ones then the historian correctly concludes that Catiline was at least courageous."
(6) A skeptical criterion of historicity is that of dissimilarity or discontinuity. A saying, for instance, can be attributed to a person only if it cannot be plausibly attributed to other contemporary sources. In the case of Jesus, the chief issue is whether a Gospel teaching can be ascribed to either Jewish thought or to the early church. Historian Michael Grant calls this the "principal valid method of research." (7) Another criterion specifically applied to Gospel studies is the presence of Aramaic words, substrata, or other indications of a Palestinian origin. Such conditions are thought to bring us closer to Jesus' teachings.
An overall test is (8) coherence. Does an event or teaching fit well with what is known concerning other surrounding occurrences and teachings?26 Even better, does the proposed event illuminate other known incidents, thereby making them more intelligible? Certainly one of the strongest methodological indications of historicity occurs when (9) a case can be built on accepted data that are recognized as well established by a wide range of otherwise diverse historians. Historian Christopher Blake refers to this as the "very considerable part of history which is acceptable to the community of professional historians."
First of all I have to complain about this sentence. This is exactly why many people are too intimidated to read passages about political, economic, and historical theory discussions…because the authors use too many damn confusing words! Any author lazy enough to use ‘historicity’ over historical accuracy just to sound intellectual deserves a swift kick in the pants.
While having a large amount of copies certainly helps scholars read the original text better, this has nothing to do with the actual act of translating the text. The problem is that certain words in other languages don’t translate their full meaning into English. Reader bias still exists, even among scholars, and I don’t think this can be discounted by having a large amount of texts to draw from.
I didn't see anything from those chunks addressing my argument about certain meanings being lost in translation. That is the most important issue about the historical accuracy of the bible for me. Nothing besides 'God wouldn't let the bible be corrupted by false translations!' has ever shown me convincing evidence for why a historian (or group of historians) couldn't mis-interpret a passage to mean something when the colloquial speech at the time meant something completely different. Especially if the passage we are speaking of is in a different language that has been changing for ~2000 years since the original piece was written.
Anyways, that's all I have to say for now. I'll re-read the chunks later and see if I can see anything else.
Edit: I don't want to make it sound like 'God wouldn't let blah happen' convinces me of anything..more like it ends the debate right there and then. Once someone starts going into the realm of 'God wouldn't..' or 'God doesn't like...' I realize they are incapable of thinking logically about the matter.
I was annoyed by that, too. He makes these claims as if they're obvious and true, and I'm standing here like..bhuh?
Roman records and Jewish historians for starters, though those aren't exactly 100% reliable.
Neither is a lot of history.
It's part of JC's mystery. You gotta have faith.
I'd say the existence of Jesus isn't really a particularly controversial subject. I'd say it's fairly likely that he existed. It's, you know, all the rest that's going to be really hard to prove.
See, that's what I've always thought, but apparently a lot of people, many of them on these boards, doubt his existence entirely. I'm interested in seeing their arguments.
I think some people just get overzealous. It's like, "of course God doesn't exist...Jesus didn't even exist, man!" Personally, I'd say the existence of some guy named Jesus a couple thousand years ago, perhaps somebody who pissed some people off and maybe even got himself crucified, isn't hard to buy. God I can understand...the miracles of Jesus I can understand...but the mere existence of Jesus? That's taking skepticism to a whole new level in my book. I mean fuck, I challenge you to prove that George W. Bush existed in the year 4000.
EDIT: I went with Bush because he's somebody of outstanding prominence. It wouldn't be fair to compare it to a common person, like you or I...there'd be almost no way to prove we existed 2000 years from now. Perhaps an actual world leader is too prominent, though (and thus too easy). Maybe go for somebody else prominent but not as well documented...like Osama Bin Laden.
I don't really intend to debate in here, I just saw this thread and decided to poke my head in so if you disregard this post altogether, that's fine by me.
Anywho, I just have to say that this kind of response right here is based off of a completely subjective viewpoint that only goes to show how christians aren't the only blind ones out there. Now yes, I do believe in a God, the christian God in fact, but when debating anything you have to put your own personal beliefs aside if you're going to attempt to come to a rational conclusion. This applies just as much to atheists as it does to anyone else.
There are generally two sides to this argument that have its roots in the most basic of questions: is there a God or not? The problem is that, for most people, it seems that is impossible to go anywhere past this simple question. If a person says yes then all of their future arguments will be tinted with the vantage point of God's existence. If a person says no then likewise any reference or mention of a "god" just sounds silly. But it goes both ways. If I'm going to start my argument on the supposition that a God exists, your argument that God's influence should be disregarded sounds just as illogical as mine does to you. To me, the argument that divine influence is real sounds as reasonable as anything else but of course it sounds kooky to you. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly closed minded or an idiot. It just means I have a different perspective, one that no one can refute. That's the inherent problem with the question, isn't it? Who knows for sure if God exists? Can you prove it empirically? Of course not but you can't prove it to be false either.
The nature of God and God's influence admittedly sounds as if it could be as much of a fabrication as dragons and ancient magic are. That's understandable. It makes sense to put aside all non measurable or quantifiable data in order to come to an answer. God is an irrevocable unknown so you put it aside as something not to be taken into consideration. But if you do that, you've already won. These is no way a christian or someone who believes in a god could adequately defend themself. But then what's the point in that? You haven't proved anything, just that your opinion differs from another's. One of the big reasons its so hard to convince an atheist of the presence of God is because with God, there are no solid answers. It is a big unknown. That's one of the big things about the christian God, that he's both personable and intimate while at the same time being this great thing that is impossible to comprehend. But that kind of argument isn't going to persuade many people. That just presents more questions. But that's fine, especially when it comes to theology.
Sometimes you have to just admit that you don't know the final answer. Sometimes the discovery of new questions is just as good of an outcome as solid answers. And I'm not talking about a christian's view point here, I'm speaking for all arguments. You are not going to convince anyone of anything in a debate if you're unwilling to take into consideration your opponent's side of the argument. Besides, answers aren't always what's important. A simple discussion and an exchange of ideas without any flagrant attacks is possible you know.
anywho, disregard if you'd like. I'm not going to be posting anything else.
note: please understand that I realize this opinion of mine isn't very fleshed out or well explained. I do not feel it necessary to do so. In fact, I'm pretty sure this thread will end up as it does whether people read my post or not. i just wanted to throw in my two cents is all
Wait, was it actually a coffee house for christians, and were the people ok with you debating them? if not, and you were just coming in to bug them and tell them their beliefs were wrong, thats a pretty douchebag of a move.
I imagine Jesus did exist but was made to be perfect like a lot of historical figures.
yeah, i think this is the case, too. obviously, as a Christian, i believe He existed; but even if i wasn't, i really don't think i could in all honesty make the claim of "JESUS DOESN'T EXIST NEENER NEENER NEENER" given the kind of fairly legit evidence that exists for someone who wasn't that big of a deal at that immediate time.
edit:
also i think sometimes it makes non-Christians feel better about their own beliefs if they can rationalize things be saying Jesus didn't exist. i'm not saying that's always or even often the case, but i do think that sometimes it's easier to not accept something if you dismiss its' existence altogether
This it OT, but the vestigial traces of Christianity that run through my head have convinced me that it doesn't matter if he existed and that the question misses the point. You can still get something from Aesop's fables even though the characters were made up. What the Jesus character teaches is important, dating him as a historical figure doesn't make his stories or ideas more or less real.
no, i totally agree with what you're saying, and i think my edit makes my point clearer
edit: actually i sort of take that back. Jesus is less real if He never existed, and to Christians that's a big deal. but the basic message of Jesus is important and relevant no matter where it's coming from. the whole salvation thing kind of needs Jesus and God's input though
Actually, I'm Christian too. I was just pointing out that once somebody begins making blanket statements like 'God thinks that is wrong' etc, it means that neither he nor I can debate anymore about the matter. If one's only defense against my argument is faith-based, then nothing I say will convince him otherwise, and vice versa. I think about things logically, and don't just take it on faith that 'God wouldn't let that happen.' Some people do just the opposite.
You can't say I'm being closed minded here, you just have to admit that nothing either of us says will convince each other that either of us is wrong.
I think assuming that logic should be the common ground in a debate is fair, considering it's a lot harder to deny the existence of a logical thought progression than a divine being saying 'Ha! You're wrong!'
Uh, examples? Unless there has been some big discovery I haven't heard about, there's no mention of Jesus in any non-christian writings that predates the second century, and those purely refer to him in the context of what Christians believe. (disregarding the almost certainly fraudulent passage in Antiquities of the Jews) It's not even a matter of reliability at that point, since they don't even claim to be getting their information from anywhere other than what they're told by Christians.
For better or worse, the evidence lies entirely with the gospels and Paul's letters. In particular, it relies on Mark, the earliest of the gospels, written as early as the late 60s, and on Matthew, which was based on Mark but may have also drawn on some other source that is now lost. Both are predated substantially by the Pauline epistles, of course, but since Paul never claims to have met Jesus other than in visions the similarity between his Jesus and the supposed historical Jesus of later accounts actually supports the Jesus myth hypothesis.
Please don't hyperbolize. Josephus has come under criticism, and there has been some tampering, but most scholars believe the fact that Josepus mentions Jesus in the Antiquities is fact.
Seutonius and Pliny the Younger both talk about the "Christ" of these conspicuous "Christians", their rituals, and how to deal with their rebellious ways. I believe Pliny the Elder makes mention of Christ as well. Jesus is not named, but the Christ was the parlance in Greco-Roman terms. The fish was used because ICTHUS, the Konian word for fish, is an anagram of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.
Accepting the existence of Jesus does not require one to worship him. It just means there was a dude named Jesus who may or may not have been put to death way back when. Might have had a beard. Who knows. Might have just been crazy. Basically accepting the existence has no more religious significance, and bears just as little relation to accepting the existence of God, as accepting the existence of Genghis Khan.
Text A: Jesus is the Son of God.
Text B: Jesus existed.
Text C: I didn't see nuthin!
My understanding is that's the way it's laid out (I don't care to check, really) so I have to cast suspicion on the whole thing. I'd bet money on Text B, sure, but I wouldn't go apeshit with that claim.
When I speak of his "existence," I'm speaking only of his existence as a man. No miracles, no Son of God-ness. You know, just for clarity. Like I said, the evidence of his existence is a bit shaky...then again, the evidence of any of our existence (including prominent world leaders) 2000 years from now probably won't be great either. So I just don't get why people who don't believe in God feel the need to also claim that Jesus didn't even exist. It's just as rational to simply say, "yeah, Jesus probably existed as a man and perhaps caused some ruckus, but was totally just a dude and there's no God." I just see no reason to take skepticism to that level, especially since it seems to me that Jesus existing but simply as a man is probably the simplest and most rational explanation.
I mean, do the same people who claim Jesus probably didn't exist also claim that Genghis Khan probably didn't exist?
Though, to be fair, you're not one of the ones I'm talking about (since as you said you'd bet money on
There isn't enough lime in the universe for this text. The existance of some guy named Yeshua who caused a ruckus in Judea almost two thousand years ago is as non-supernatural as the existance of an ancient city called Troy, where a war took place with the Greeks a few thousand years ago. Jesus existing doesn't necessarily mean that God turned the Nile River into blood, and Troy existing doesn't necessarily mean that Achiles was an invincible warrior who was made so by being dipped into a magic hell-river as a child. Myths can be based on real places and people without being real themselves.
We only found Troy fairly recently, and before that it was quite reasonable to be skeptical.
I remember that Qingu argued against the historicity of Jesus. If I recall, he pointed out that at the time Christianity originated, there were a lot of mystery-cults based around fictionalized people, and that early Christianity bore a great deal of resemblance to said cults. Hence, given the scarcity of general historical support for Jesus outside Christian writing it's reasonable to suppose that Jesus was created out of whole cloth.
I'm not a history or religious studies scholar, but that doesn't strike me as absurd. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether there was some historical Jesus, either way.
The twentieth Century had it's fair share of cult of personalities and millennialism as well, mind you. Mithraism was probably inspired by a real guy too.
I thought it was Zoroastrianism, but I can't find anything to support that.
You're probably thinking of Osiric / Dionysian cults.
Pliny and Seutonius would be two of the historians that mention Christians early in the second century, yes. As I said before, a historian mentioning that Christians believe in some "Christus" guy is essentially completely irrelevant. No one is denying the existence of Christians. Admittedly, Seutonius does also say "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome", which some have interpreted as a reference to Jesus, and if it was it would seem like he is drawing on a non-christian source. However, there's no real reason to believe he's referring to Jesus at all. Chrestus isn't just a possible misspelling of Christus, it's an actual name. When he was actually referring to Christians, he had no trouble either spelling it correctly or actually calling them Christians instead of Jews, and if he was talking about Jesus he would be off from every other chronology by several decades.
As for Josephus, I'm well aware he probably mentioned Jesus in the original text, but the Testimonium Flavianum is well known to be complete bullshit. We don't know precisely what he said originally before it got modified beyond recognition by countless pious frauds, and it wasn't written early enough for a reference to be in itself evidence for Jesus's existence. Most likely, the Testimonium was originally a disparaging reference to the beliefs of Christians and the "brother of James" bit referred to an entirely different Jesus before the "who was called Christ" interpolation. We don't really know, however, which is why we have to disregard it and focus on other sources, like the gospels. Which brings us back to the actual topic.
Aaargh, what's with people comparing Jesus to famous historical figures? I've heard him compared to Alexander the Great, Caesar, and now Genghis Khan. Do people just hear it so often they repeat it without stopping to think about what they're saying? It's not appropriate at all, and it irritates me terribly. We have tons of evidence for the existence of Genghis Khan. We have countless matching accounts written while he was still alive, the records of the armies he led and the places he conquered, and a full timeline of every event in his life produced by multiple corresponding records. We know when and where he had every battle and the specific tactics he used, we know the full lives and family trees of his family, friends, and generals, we know his tastes in food and clothing. By contrast, we don't have a single contemporary account of Jesus's life, or for that matter any account that doesn't derive ultimately from the stories in the new testament. All we have is the vague idea that people wouldn't make up someone out of whole cloth to worship like that, especially with all the actual prophets running around to choose from. That's fine, and personally I believe Jesus probably existed in some form, or at least was a composite of other existing prophets, but it is nothing like the real evidence we have for other historical figures.
There is a bibliography, but I have not seen it.
Which brings me to the historicity of the Bible: So what? Seriously, who cares if a bunch of the facts and figures in the Bible are based off actual events? If there was really a King Solomon, or a King David, that doesn't mean shit - it means that whoever made up all the fanciful stuff was smart enough to include a bunch of real people. If I wrote a religious myth about how I was God made mortal and I rode through the sky on a magical unicorn, would it become more credible just because I mentioned that the unicorn took a dump on GWB's head? I mean, OOOH ACTUAL HISTORICAL FIGURE!! and all.
That's why I maintain my relative agnosticism about it. It's entirely plausable that he or someone very like him existed, but it seems reasonable enough to doubt quite a bit, too. Last time I checked, a huge number of chunks of his story were a composites of someone else's messiah story.
Ehhh....they're kind of like the End Notes to the Waste Land - more harm than good. John thought some esoteric references would make people more interested. Luke protested, but Matthew was just trying to score some sweet kosher poon.