5 reasons to suspect Jesus never existed...

[_Jersey Girl]

Aristotle,

Thank you for wading into this murky little thread. Each of the questions that I posed to you has something to do with the first claim that IHAQ posted from the article and Ehrman's assertions about that claim. I think I know who my "go to" guys are for this topic and you didn't disappoint. Here are his assertions.

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

In the words of Bart Ehrman (who himself believes the stories were built on a historical kernel):

“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

And they say there is no God. Hello, Aristotle.

Hello.

Would you have expected pagan authors to invest time writing about Christ?

No, I would not. As an example of why, take another famous Jew from the 1st century A.D., Philo of Alexandria. He lived in the academic center of the Roman Empire, Alexandria. He is extremely important example of middle Platonism. We know from Josephus that he represented the case of Alexandrian Jews before the emperor Caligula. We have tons of his works on philosophy and biblical exegesis. How much did pagan authors write about him? Zero. Given all of this, why would we expect pagans to take notice of a Jew living in the backwaters of Galilee who probably never talked to a Roman until the day he died?

Aristotle, I don't even know who the pagan authors really are. That is why I am asking for your opinion. If I had names, I might know if I've read about them prior. I should think that pagan writers would be more interested in documenting their own cultural than they would the presence of Jesus.

Would you expect that there would birth/death records for Christ?
Where would we find birth/death records for Christ?

External to the Bible: no and nowhere. This Wikipedia article says that there are 21 birth certificates extant of Roman citizens and 34 from Greek Egypt. Given that I'm sure there were more than 55 people who lived in the Ancient Roman Empire, I'm guessing the odds of finding a birth certificate for a given individual is essentially zero.

I've never seen that wiki entry before, so thank you for providing it. I read it earlier, I seem to recall that it addressed illegitimate births. In your opinion, would the birth of Jesus have been considered an illegitimate birth?

Where would we find documentation regarding his trial and punishment?

I wouldn't expect to find sources for that. We do have agreement on the manner of his death in the gospels and in Paul, plus corroboration that his death was punishment at the hands of the Romans in Tacitus and Josephus.

I've read all of those accounts, though I can't recall from memory. It's been a very long time since I've thought about or discussed these evidences. Wasn't it either Tacitus or Josephus that people say were tampered with? Josephus, I think.

That we know anything about a Galilean peasant is astonishing, given the amount of evidence that does survive from antiquity on any given subject.

That's exactly what I was thinking. It seems to me, based on what you've stated (and I haven't gone off to verify for myself yet) that at least some of Ehrman's assertions are based on unrealistic historical expectations.

And thank you again.

[_Jersey Girl]

Cam,

Look at what you did with your response. Here it is.

Hey, woman. You participated in a thread. It's not exactly following someone around to participate in the discussion they started. Nice attempt at Victim 101, but ain't no one buying it.

Look. I get it. You know exactly jack s*** about the topic, and you keep deferring to others in the hopes that you don't have to account for any of the assertions you're making. The typical Jersey Girl drama queen act is in full throttle, so by all means keep harping on the victim thing.. Seems to work for most religionists. Whatever gets you to sleep at night, madame.

And again, what makes Mr. K and Mr. EA any more knowledgeable on the matter than anyone else? You haven't answered the question precisely because you can't formulate a coherent thought on it, but please feel free to prove me wrong...

In fact, after re-reading the thread... I'm not sure what the heck you're getting at other than... 'Nothing can be proven wrong, therefore Jesus wins!'? I don't know... I literally can't entertain your thought processes because they make me dizzy.

- Doc

Almost all of your so-called content there is about me. I took your post piece by piece and made an attempt to engage you, and I asked you questions. You failed to respond directly to my words and those questions. What I got in return was "Jersey, Jersey, Jersey".

Now, I'll do what you didn't do for me. I'll answer one of your questions, even if it has to do with unrelated minutia, which is why I didn't answer it to begin with.

And again, what makes Mr. K and Mr. EA any more knowledgeable on the matter than anyone else? You haven't answered the question precisely because you can't formulate a coherent thought on it, but please feel free to prove me wrong...

What makes them more knowledgeable is the extensive work they've done which is evident in their commentary and their ability to articulate it.

If you don't believe me, read the thread that EA linked to, read their brief replies on this thread, and compare them to everything else that you see. You can form your own opinion about it and that has not a thing to do with me. If you're interested in learning more about the topic, you'll likely come to appreciate what they bring here.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What makes them more knowledgeable is the extensive work they've done which is evident in their commentary and their ability to articulate it.

If you don't believe me, read the thread that EA linked to, read their brief replies on this thread, and compare them to everything else that you see. You can form your own opinion about it and that has not a thing to do with me. If you're interested in learning more about the topic, you'll likely come to appreciate what they bring here.

Yeah, they are the bees knees. I agree, they the real dizzle my nizzle fo' shizzle.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

What makes them more knowledgeable is the extensive work they've done which is evident in their commentary and their ability to articulate it.

If you don't believe me, read the thread that EA linked to, read their brief replies on this thread, and compare them to everything else that you see. You can form your own opinion about it and that has not a thing to do with me. If you're interested in learning more about the topic, you'll likely come to appreciate what they bring here.

Yeah, they are the bees knees. I agree, they the real dizzle my nizzle fo' shizzle.

- Doc

They are! And apparently Kish is one of your "go to" guys, too.

I think the chances, however, are better that he did than they are that he did not.

Hello Reverend,

Would you mind listing the evidences so we can research them? This is an interesting topic. Perhaps there are texts that fall within the criteria?

/R

Dr. Cameron

Ya want a link to that, buddy?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ya want a link to that, buddy?

Did he answer the query? If so, spank you very much!

- Doc

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

I thought i had learned of Jesus by reading his history in the Bible and Book of Mormon as well as years of Sunday teachings.

To find out how far out of touch BYU as well as the Church as a whole is with biblical studies was very disappointing. Given an environment that indoctrinated us to take it all literally made it all the worse. Note "the words in red"

Those are huge issues for those exiting the church, Rock.

I see it as huge issues for those that wish to remain in the church as well.

[_Jersey Girl]

I see it as huge issues for those that wish to remain in the church as well.

Do you mean people who have investigated, found the truth claims of the church to be lacking (or false), and wish to remain in the church?

I suppose that's the road that leads to NOM.

I think people can successfully navigate that road if they're focus is on family and culture. If that's what brings them happiness and inner peace, I think that's the key to at least partial authenticity.

Me, I'd be out the door never to return. How do I know? I've already exited a church because I couldn't tolerate some of the things I witnessed and still remain my authentic self.

I do appreciate those who are able to, though.

[_Aristotle Smith]

In your opinion, would the birth of Jesus have been considered an illegitimate birth?

Probably not. As far as Rome was concerned, if local custom said that Joseph and Mary were married, and no one disputed that Mary gave birth to Jesus, then Jesus was a legitimate kid.

However, in either case the Romans probably would not have cared less. Legitimacy was about transfer of wealth and property. Since Joseph and Mary likely had neither, the status of the kids wouldn't matter to anyone Roman.

[_Jersey Girl]

In your opinion, would the birth of Jesus have been considered an illegitimate birth?

Probably not. As far as Rome was concerned, if local custom said that Joseph and Mary were married, and no one disputed that Mary gave birth to Jesus, then Jesus was a legitimate kid.

However, in either case the Romans probably would not have cared less. Legitimacy was about transfer of wealth and property. Since Joseph and Mary likely had neither, the status of the kids wouldn't matter to anyone Roman.

According to the link that you supplied, oral declarations were also acceptable for "legitimate" births. So, when Ehrman claims that birth records are among a "vast array"of available material and that there is no written record for Jesus birth, not only is he choosing to ignore the apparent fact that there exists only a total of 55 surviving birth records and also the fact that oral declarations were accepted as valid.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'll just insert my comments.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

Counterargument: But Josephus!

Rebuttal: Fabrication by Christian fanatics.

Counterargument: But such and such scholar says something!

Rebuttal:

Dr. Cam plagiarizes an unnamed source... Should see familiar to Christians! Please see below.

Flavius Josephus

The problem with Fr. Farley's article in response to Ms. Tarico's article is that is portends to be a scholarly rebuttal when in fact it is little more than a personal attack on Ms. Tarico written for the benefit of a Christian audience.

Where Fr. Farley's article fails academically is on the issue of historiography. Historiography is the study of how historical documents are produced and how they can be used to verify authenticity.

It may or may not be true that first year history students are aware of Flavius Josephus. Third year history students with a specialty in Roman history are certain to have read his works. The short paragraph cited as proof of Jesus's hysterical existence is so famous or infamous that there is a special word for it: the testimonium.

The same third year history students who will have read the testimonium will also be aware of the historiographical problems with it. The first and foremost problem is that many early church defenders who are certainly aware of Book 18 of the Antiquities by Josephus never sited the testimonium. Most conspicuous would be Origen who sites Josephus's Book of Antiquities at least five times in connection to his commentary on the book of Matthew and his work Contra Celsum yet fails to mention the testimonium when it would obviously help his case.

The first church apologist to cite the testimonium was Eusebus c.324. There are then 11 other church defenders after Eusebus who site Josephus but failed to mention the testimonium. It is not until Jerome in the fifth century do we see the next mention of the testimonium. The lack of its mention in other historical documents of the first four centuries suggests that the testimonium is a forgery that did not exist until several centuries after Josephus completed his works.

Furthermore the testimonium states that Jesus was the Christ. As a loyal Pharisaic Jew this is something that Josephus could not have brought himself to write. What is more, is that the section of Josephus works where the testimonium can be found breaks the continuity of his narrative where in he lists a series of riots.

Inasmuch as there is strong evidence that the testimonium is a forgery Ms. Tarico's first point is still academically sound.

Historiography continues to damage Fr. Farley's position in regards to the gospels. Even if any of the Gospels actually claimed to be eyewitness accounts the four chosen to represent church Canon in the New Testament were written well after the supposed events. The earliest of the four Gospels was Mark, written no earlier than 30 years after the Christ event. Matthew Luke and the acts of the apostles were written at least 45 years after the event. We use historiography to analyze the language used and the style of pros employed in order to place a document within a given timeframe. The later the document is written the less likely it stands to be an eyewitness account. The Gospel of John, which is written in the first person, was written no earlier then 300 years after the event. It's style is vastly different from the other three Gospels and few academic historians place any historical value on it. Excepting this preserves Ms. Tarico's third reason to doubt a historical Jesus.

The discrepancies in the narratives of the various Gospels is compounded when one considers that the four canonical Gospels are the few selected by the church out of more than eighty Gospels known to be in existence. The Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John were selected because they supported the church's doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. Other Gospels such as those of Thomas Peter or Mary Magdalene were rejected because the discrepancies in their narratives were irreconcilable or their accounts of Jesus regarding his divinity were not in line with church doctrine. The multiplicity of Gospels and the wide discrepancies in their narratives continues to be a cause for doubt in their significance as historical documents. So again, the fourth reason to doubt the historicity of Jesus rings true academically.

Ms. Tarico's article is not ignorant or misinformed. It is in fact, academically sound. The church need only be threatened by this if it continues to require the faithful to believe that the events described in the Bible are literal and factual. Instead it is time that we all recognize that the Bible's purpose is not historical and that originally it was meant to uplift people and enhance the human experience. Desperately clinging to ancient dogma despite empirical data is the behavior of flat-earthers.

The church has an unfair disadvantage in this discussion because it's faith requires that the events be historically true. Historians have no such requirement. Instead they produce the best theory possible given the data at hand. Inasmuch as The data available makes the historical existence of Jesus extremely unlikely the only viable academic position is to hold the events surrounding Jesus suspect. It is possible that there is some yet unrevealed data that indeed proves the historicity of Jesus. Until such time as said data becomes revealed historians will be perfectly academically justified in saying that Jesus's existence is doubtful. In the meantime it is left to the faithful to pray for the revelation of such data. But then you wouldn't have a "faith" anymore.

---------------

So on and so forth. This is why the cost-to-benefit ratio is always to the disadvantage of the not-insane person. The amount of effort it takes to cogently rebut wild yammerings just isn't worth it after a while.