he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Laurens said:thenexttodie's reluctance to bother dealing the the meat of any of the posts, preferring to address pointless things and tangents indicates to me that we have a troll in our midst.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Laurens said:thenexttodie's reluctance to bother dealing the the meat of any of the posts, preferring to address pointless things and tangents indicates to me that we have a troll in our midst.
thenexttodie said:You're right, if all the names were removed from all of the posts in this forum, Scholars would not be able to discern every post made by which individual.
Collecemall said:Your blog post appears to have caught Richard's attention. Well done.
he_who_is_nobody said:I have to say that what you have presented appears like a very weak rebuttal to Jesus's title. I could buy that, but I was hoping there would be a better rebuttal for such an obvious problem from the mythosist's prospective. It also does not address why his name is Yeshua and not Emanuel. As I said, one would think if one were to create a Jewish messiah, than the name of the created messiah would be Emanuel. One would think if one was trying to hit as many prothetic nails on the head, getting the name of the messiah correct seems like a big one to hit.
Laurens said:I don't see an obvious problem with it, the fact that Matthew states "that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled." in context of Jesus being a Nazarene. Even if we disregard the NZR exegesis, we are left with the question of why Matthew said this. Was he making up a prophecy to fix awkward facts after the matter? Maybe, but he equally could have been referencing an actual known prophecy.
he_who_is_nobody said:Collecemall said:Your blog post appears to have caught Richard's attention. Well done.
You cannot just say that without providing sources and links.
Laurens said:Without appealing to scholarly consensus, what do you find the most convincing evidence, or argument for the historicity of Jesus?
I've been reading up of the mythicist position lately, and feel a slight worry that my biases (as an atheist) are leaning me more in it's favour than someone completely impartial might be.
Of course I am not asking you to do my research for me, I have a backlog of articles saved on my phone, and I'm going to get some books on the topic when I am able.
The reason I am asking is mainly to generate a discussion, to see how well the evidence holds up and to see how well the counter arguments hold up...
I find this topic fascinating because of the glimpse it provides at the ancient world and the formation of a religion that has subsequently shaped our society and culture.
Edit: the reason I ask not to appeal to scholarly consensus, is because we know what the consensus is and therefore it does not progress the discussion to say "experts say he existed" I want to know why they are saying it, and what their best case for it is.
Dragan Glas said:Greetings,
You can start by citing sources for these claims and dates.
Kindest regards,
James
Not according to biblical scholars - see here.Rhed said:Dragan Glas said:Greetings,
You can start by citing sources for these claims and dates.
Kindest regards,
James
Within the Biblical text it mentions specifics years from such and such event. The maximum time span of the Gospels is more than likely before AD 67 due to lack of references of significant historical events.
Laurens said:Without appealing to scholarly consensus, what do you find the most convincing evidence, or argument for the historicity of Jesus?
I've been reading up of the mythicist position lately, and feel a slight worry that my biases (as an atheist) are leaning me more in it's favour than someone completely impartial might be.
Of course I am not asking you to do my research for me, I have a backlog of articles saved on my phone, and I'm going to get some books on the topic when I am able.
The reason I am asking is mainly to generate a discussion, to see how well the evidence holds up and to see how well the counter arguments hold up...
I find this topic fascinating because of the glimpse it provides at the ancient world and the formation of a religion that has subsequently shaped our society and culture.
Edit: the reason I ask not to appeal to scholarly consensus, is because we know what the consensus is and therefore it does not progress the discussion to say "experts say he existed" I want to know why they are saying it, and what their best case for it is.
Dragan Glas said:
Laurens said:Without appealing to scholarly consensus, what do you find the most convincing evidence, or argument for the historicity of Jesus?
I've been reading up of the mythicist position lately, and feel a slight worry that my biases (as an atheist) are leaning me more in it's favour than someone completely impartial might be.
Of course I am not asking you to do my research for me, I have a backlog of articles saved on my phone, and I'm going to get some books on the topic when I am able.
The reason I am asking is mainly to generate a discussion, to see how well the evidence holds up and to see how well the counter arguments hold up...
I find this topic fascinating because of the glimpse it provides at the ancient world and the formation of a religion that has subsequently shaped our society and culture.
Edit: the reason I ask not to appeal to scholarly consensus, is because we know what the consensus is and therefore it does not progress the discussion to say "experts say he existed" I want to know why they are saying it, and what their best case for it is.
If I am writing historical fiction set during WW2 why would I include details of Sputnik? These events don't happen in the period covered by the story so why should they be included?Rhed said:1. There is no description of the destruction of the temple.in AD 70, one of the most significant historical events. This would have corroborated with Jesus' prediction about the temple recorded in the Gospels. Jesus predicted others things as well and was corroborated later in the Gospels and Epistles, such as His death and resurrection.
2. There is no description of the siege of Jerusalem, another significant point in history. A 3-year war between the Romans and Jews.
Hardly conclusive. Details of Paul's and Peter's deaths are "traditions" and not established history. The author of Acts also doesn't demonstrate familiarity with Paul's letters.Rhed said:3. Years before the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, in the Book of Acts, Luke doesn't mention the deaths of Peter (AD 65) and Paul (AD 64). Luke writes extensively about these two men.
4. Luke in the Book of Acts doesn't mention the death of James, the brother of Jesus (AD 62), although he mentions the the deaths of James, the brother of John, and the death of Stephen.
Possibly.Rhed said:5. The Gospel of Luke predates the Book of Acts (Acts 1:1-2)
The consensus is that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.Rhed said:6. Apostle Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke (AD 63-64) in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. This shows Luke's Gospel was known about that time.
Do you understand the basic premise of the mythicist argument (i.e. have you read this thread at all)? Nothing Paul says is inconsistent with a purely celestial Jesus who died and rose again in a celestial realm. This hardly summarizes the Gospels as this version has no birth and no earthly ministry, only mentioning that people saw him after he rose from the dead (as Paul claims to have done so in a vision). Also, you are assuming Peter and James are followers of a human Jesus though nothing in Paul's texts indicate that they did anything other than have visions of Jesus like he did.Rhed said:7. Paul summarizes the Gospels (1 Cor. 15:3-8) dated around AD 53-57. And Paul described his interaction with Peter and James (Gal 1:15-19; Gal 2:1). This means that Paul saw the risen Christ and learned about the Gospel accounts from the eyewitnesses (Peter and James) within the 5 years of the crucifixion.
This is a stretch. The language isn't really parallel here.Rhed said:8. Paul quotes Luke's Gospel (Luke 22:19*20) in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 (Luke's description of the Last Supper).
So? This just suggests those gospels predate Luke, as most people agree.Rhed said:9. The Gospel of Luke quoted Mark and Matthew repeatedly.
Luke readily admitted he was not an eyewitness, but a historian collecting eyewitness accounts.
This also happens in mythology where a basic story gets elaborated by later authors.Rhed said:10. Mark's Gospel appears to be an early "crime broadcast", meaning a brief and focused record of essential elements. The details will come later, just like what happens in crime investigations.
This is a ridiculous supposition (apart from John being last). What evidence do you have for it?Rhed said:11. The Gospel of Mark doesn't mention key players by name due to protection of eyewitnesses. Later does the Gospel of John fill in the names (most scholars agree that John was the last Gospel written). The eyewitnesses were out of harm's way by that time.
Rhed said:AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple
SpecialFrog said:Rhed said:6. Apostle Paul quotes from the Gospel of Luke (AD 63-64) in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. This shows Luke's Gospel was known about that time.
The consensus is that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.
if you insist.he_who_is_nobody said:Citation needed.SpecialFrog said:The consensus is that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul.
Bart Ehrman said:
Raymond Collins said:
Rhed said:AD 1-33 LIfe of Jesus
AD 45-50 Mark writes his Gospel
AD 50-53 Luke writes his Gospel
AD 53-57 Paul quotes Luke
AD 57-60 Luke writes Acts
AD 61-65 The deaths of Paul, James, and Peter
AD 67-70 Siege of Jerusalem
AD 70 Destruction of the Temple
he_who_is_nobody said:Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the scholarly consensus was that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those were just traditions that later became part of the Bible's canonization.