Evidence for Jesus

[_huckelberry]

Jersey I do not remember Erhlman being particurly interested in the subject of adjusting roles of women in the hisory of 1st century christianity. He may have mentionsed it. If the subject interests you I suggest the book In Memory of Her by Elisabeth Fiorenza.

for typing pracitice I will provide a couple quotes as examples. ch 2

Another example of androcentric interpretation is often found with reference to Rom 16:1-3 In this passage Phoebe is called the diakonos and prostatis of the church at Cenchreae, the seaport of Corinth. Exegetes attempt to downplay the imporance of both titles bere because they are used with reference to a woman. whenever Paul calls himself, ,apollos, Timothy or Tychicos diakonos , scholars translate the term as dacon. but because the expression here refers to a woman exegetes translate it as servant. helper or deaconess. while Kurzinger for instance translatge the title in Phil1:1 as deacon in the case of Phoebe he explains that seh works in the service of the community. In a footnote he characterizes PHoebe as on eoth the first pastoral assistants. H Lietzmann alsos undernds the office of Phoebe by analogy to the later institue of the deaconesses which, in comparison to thant of the dacons ,had onl ya very limited function in the church. he charaterizes Phoebe as an apparently well to do and charitable lady who because of her femine virtues worked in the service of the poor and the sick and assisted in the baptims of women.Origen had alread labeled Phoebe as an assistant and servant of Paul He concluded that women who do good works can be appointed as deaconesses.

However the text does not permit such a femine stereotyping of Phoebe. as we can see from 1 cor3:5-9 Paull use diakonos in parallel with synergo s and with tese titles characterizees
apollos and himself as missionaries with equal standing who have contributed to the upbou8iolding of the community n different ways. Since Phoebe is names dikonos of the church at
cenchreae,she receives this title because her service and office were influential in the community
that pPhoebe could claim great authority within the early Christian missionary endeavor is underlined by the second title prostatis patrona. Therefore when Paul calls PHoebe a patrona he characterizes her by analogy with those persons who had influential positions as represetative protectors and leader in the hellenistec religous associations.
...............
perhaps closer to the subject of text transmission,
p51

Finally , a textual critical study of the trasmission of New Testament tets and their variant readings shows that such an active elimination of women from the biblical tet has taken place. For instance, in col 4:15 the author extends greetings to the community at Laodicea and then to a person named Mymphan. t
the accusative form of the name can refer to a man with the name Nymphas or to a woman whose name was Nympha. If oe accepts the variant readings to codex vaticanus some minusculse and the Syriac translaltion, and the church in her house, then the greeting refer to a woman who is the leader of a house church. if one reads with the Egyptian text their house then the greeting should either refer to Nympas and his wife or Nymphas and his her friends. the Western and Byzantine textual witnesses n turrn consider the person to be a man because they read the masculne pronun his house The feminine reading is the more difficolt reading and masculine form can ealiy be explained as a correction of the female names since it was considered improbale or undesirable that a woman shold have such a leadership position.
The same antiwoman tendaency can befound in the
western text of acts. codex D adds in Acts 1:14 and children so that the women who were gathered with the apostels and Jesus brethern become the wives and families of the apostles.
wheres Luke plays down the ecclesial leadership activity of women but underlines the support of prominent women for the christian mission.
codexD eliminates them totally. In Acts 17:4 it rewrites and not a few of the noble women in such a way that these women become the wives of the noble men in Acts 17:12 It also effaces the emphasis of the original text on the noble women.
,,,,,,,,,,,

I might not have the interest to correct my bad typing
Much of the more interesting aspects of the book lie in moving from these text observations to seeing how elements in the gospel stories reflect a more important involvement of women in the christian movement. As the movement became more hellenized late first century a concern to fit normal sexual roles in society altered Christian organization and colored how the earlier time was described.

[_marg]

When I asked earlier in the thread for evidence of challenge of the New Testament stories the answer I got (and always get) is that there are none.

Jersey Girl, In what time frame during or after Jesus's death would you expect challenges to exist, what would they be challenging, and from whom (I don't mean specifically, I mean generally)?

[_MarkF]

JAK on Page 4 [correction].

However, I'm skeptical that any reliable evidence for a singular character of Jesus can be produced.

Based upon the synoptic Gospels, Josephus (Greek+Slavonic), Pseudo-Clementines, Thomas, and later Gospels (Ebionites via Epiphanius, Nazoreans via Jerome, and Infancy Gospel of James) there's compelling classical evidence for John the Baptist, irregardless of the Christ or His disciples including James, Brother of Jesus. See www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/johnessay.html

Whether the Alexamenos graffiti or that "since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." (41/49AD, Suetonius, also Acts, Orosius, Cassius Dio) there was global ignorance of fabricated bio, whether upheld by friendly eye-witnesses (per Papias, 1Cor 15:6 etc) or by hostile crowds pointed-out their knowledge of Jesus too (Acts 2:22, 26:26).

But the Bible [Gospels] claims exact quotations verbatim which were not written at the time by anyone. ... There are at least two ways to approach the question. One is the literal verbatim historical character in a singular person. The other is that someone said something which others told as stories which later were written by hand and which were verbatim the words ... with absolute historical accuracy.

This is too hedged, and anachronistically assumes the modern importance of written record. A working example: Both Luke+John report the inscription on Jesu's Cross was written in 3x languages: Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Its Latin "title" was 30-characters, and some propose its sign-writer abridged its translation according to letter-span or readership, so our Gospel writer's chose verbatim according to their different readerships. However, many propose that our Gospel writers were more concerned here with the exact meaning, than according an exact wording, whether Mark+John omit a "This is" prefix or Mark+Luke "Jesus", common to all is the essential element "King of the Jews".

Nevo on p6 quotes Byrskog & Bauckham on the reliability of eyewitness memory, to which New Testament scholar Darrel Bock states that the Jewish culture was "a culture of memory" (e.g. Deut 6:4-9). Rainer Reisner presents 6x key reasons why oral tradition accurately preserved Jesus' teachings. 1st, Jesus used the Old Testament prophets' practice of proclaiming the word of God which demanded accurate preservation of inspired teaching. 2nd, Jesus' presentations of Himself as Messiah would reinforce among His followers the need to preserve His words accurately. 3rd, ninety percent of Jesus' teachings and sayings use mnemonic methods similar to those used in Hebrew poetry. 4th, Jesus trained His disciples to teach His lessons even while He was on earth. 5th, Jewish boys were educated until they were twelve, so the disciples likely knew how to read and write. 6th, just as Jewish and Greek teachers gathered disciples, Jesus gathered and trained His to carry on after His death.

This also discards that Luke is supported as a 1st-generation Christian (richardMdBorn on p3), and that the early-church attributed the Gospel's names in numerous testimonies that Mark was collected (proto-Mark) and restructured as a secretarial-interpreter to Peter, that Matthew or proto-Matthew had original-language primacy, and that John the Apostle (e.g. 21:24,20) later "issued, gave out" his namesake Gospel "in his old age".

It requires magic. It requires suspension of disbelief.

I don't see classical and Biblical scholars jumping to describe their discipline as-such. Now, '[Caesar] Augustus made the grim joke that "it is better to be Herod's pig [hus] than Herod's son [huios]."' (Macrobius' Saturnalia 2:4:11, 395AD). Should this famous-joke of Caesar score above the basic structure of the Gospel Jesus, and can we ascribe its quotation-marks are dynamic with its original audience?

Re. the "James Michner" inter-woven actor (Jason Osborne on p4), faux wartime-characters have been demolished by heightening criticism. Each Gospel shows independent development paths (different audience and unique perspective), but in their shared-data especially in sections of Matthew+Luke considered 'borrowed' from Mark, there is no tendency to embellish the narratives. They also avoid smuggling the post-Easter faith into the pre-Easter history. By analysing the teachings of the New Testament church and in the Gospels contrasting the post-resurrection teachings of Jesus in Luke/Matthew with pre-Easter teachings, E.E.Lemico Lemcio makes the case that:

The hardest available evidence from the gospels has confirmed the thesis that the Evangelists produced narratives about Jesus of Nazareth that were free of blatant attempts to infuse and overlay this story with their own later and developed estimates of his teaching, miracles, passion, and person...With a consistency that can be charted on virtually every page of text, the thought and idiom of his era are not reproduced in theirs. Or, more correctly, they do not retroinject theirs into his.
...
This effort transcended merely putting verbs in past tenses and dividing the account into pre- and post-resurrection periods. Rather, they took care that terminology appropriate to the Christian era does not appear beforehand. Vocabulary characteristic prior to Easter falls by the wayside afterwards. Words common to both bear a different nuance in each. Idiom suits the time.

Link1,C.9 of www.christian-thinktank.com/stilltoc.html offers a selection of Lemico's catergories from the scores of these discontinues to demonstrate this:

* The Christological titles: "Son of Man" is used almost exclusively by Jesus of himself; the post-Easter community only uses it once of Jesus!
* The Well-defined term 'Lord' of the post-Easter community does not overlay the more 'vague' usages of 'lord' in the gospels.
* The obviously Christo-centric message of the post-Easter community does NOT obliterate the Patri-centric message of the pre-Easter Jesus;
* The pre-Easter Jesus talks about the gospel of "God" and of the "Kingdom"; the post-Easter message is that of the gospel of "Jesus".
* The focal command to go and make disciples, to baptize (in the name of the Trinity!), to obey Jesus' commands--finds NO place in the pre-Easter narratives of the life/teaching of Jesus. The evangelists have NOT 'pushed' that post-Easter teaching/mission 'back' into Jesus' past.

[_MarkF]

a textual critical study of the transmission of New Testament texts and their variant readings shows that such an active elimination of women from the biblical text has taken place. For instance, in Col 4:15, ...

The votes are out on Colossians 4:15. This example of Col 4:15 is not a pattern & practise of "active elimination" by scribes "in order to deemphasize the role of women" and is just as easily down-played to simply assuming and defaulting-to the latent nature of social-address (e.g. Mr & Mrs X).

Letter-variations are common by copyists of tedious unical (without spaces) documents as was the Greek New Testament. Not so much "correction of the female name" as Nymphan is neutral, but modified by the end-of-sentence accentuation of "her/his/their [autes/autou/auton] house." I'd point-out that secular copyists were also employed, and as far as I know ancient-support for a woman possibly widow (via autes) in unical-Greek copies is very slight (Codex B--Vaticanus), compared to unical-Codex D,E,F,G,K,L,Psi for "his" (via autou) and A,C,Sin for "their" (via auton).

It'd be typically symptomatic of tremors from a lower-textual mistake, if devoid of strength from higher-textual criticism, and that Westcott&Hort generally employed Codex Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, so thus "her house" is translated into the NIV and others.

Regards to Fiorenza's other demonstration of Codex Bezae (D), interpolation was misguided and perhaps copied-in from margin-notes, but the fellowship in Acts 1:14 would have included "and children" and D may also not explicitly modify "the women" as "their" wives, but (yes) weakens the immediacy of "the women" in Luke. Whilst Acts 17:4 in D shouldn't have been effaced with chauvanism, these are poker-dot nuances isolated to Acts in Codex D.

Some instiutionalized conspiracy of a woman-centric corruption and recovery is both muddled and fails to impart the numeracy of Codex and their cursive copies. Greek New Testament in http://scripturetext.com/colossians/4-15.htm

[_JAK]

JAK on Page 3.

However, I'm skeptical that any reliable evidence for a singular character of Jesus can be produced.

Based upon the synoptic Gospels, Josephus (Greek+Slavonic), Pseudo-Clementines, Thomas, and later Gospels (Ebionites via Epiphanius, Nazoreans via Jerome, and Infancy Gospel of James) there's compelling classical evidence for John the Baptist, irregardless of the Christ or His disciples including James, Brother of Jesus. See www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/johnessay.html

Whether the Alexamenos graffiti or that "since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." (41/49AD, Suetonius, also Acts, Orosius, Cassius Dio) there was global ignorance of fabricated bio, whether upheld by friendly eye-witnesses (per Papias, 1Cor 15:6 etc) or by hostile crowds pointed-out their knowledge of Jesus too (Acts 2:22, 26:26).

But the Bible [Gospels] claims exact quotations verbatim which were not written at the time by anyone. ... There are at least two ways to approach the question. One is the literal verbatim historical character in a singular person. The other is that someone said something which others told as stories which later were written by hand and which were verbatim the words ... with absolute historical accuracy.

This is too hedged, and anachronistically assumes the modern importance of written record. A working example: Both Luke+John report the inscription on Jesu's Cross was written in 3x languages: Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Its Latin "title" was 30-characters, and some propose its sign-writer abridged its translation according to letter-span or readership, so our Gospel writer's chose verbatim according to their different readerships. However, many propose that our Gospel writers were more concerned here with the exact meaning, than according an exact wording, whether Mark+John omit a "This is" prefix or Mark+Luke "Jesus", common to all is the essential element "King of the Jews".

Nevo on p6 quotes Byrskog & Bauckham on the reliability of eyewitness memory, to which New Testament scholar Darrel Bock states that the Jewish culture was "a culture of memory" (e.g. Deut 6:4-9). Rainer Reisner presents 6x key reasons why oral tradition accurately preserved Jesus' teachings. 1st, Jesus used the Old Testament prophets' practice of proclaiming the word of God which demanded accurate preservation of inspired teaching. 2nd, Jesus' presentations of Himself as Messiah would reinforce among His followers the need to preserve His words accurately. 3rd, ninety percent of Jesus' teachings and sayings use mnemonic methods similar to those used in Hebrew poetry. 4th, Jesus trained His disciples to teach His lessons even while He was on earth. 5th, Jewish boys were educated until they were twelve, so the disciples likely knew how to read and write. 6th, just as Jewish and Greek teachers gathered disciples, Jesus gathered and trained His to carry on after His death.

This also discards that Luke is supported as a 1st-generation Christian (richardMdBorn on p3), and that the early-church attributed the Gospel's names in numerous testimonies that Mark was collected (proto-Mark) and restructured as a secretarial-interpreter to Peter, that Matthew or proto-Matthew had original-language primacy, and that John the Apostle (e.g. 21:24,20) later "issued, gave out" his namesake Gospel "in his old age".

It requires magic. It requires suspension of disbelief.

I don't see classical and Biblical scholars jumping to describe their discipline as-such. Now, '[Caesar] Augustus made the grim joke that "it is better to be Herod's pig [hus] than Herod's son [huios]."' (Macrobius' Saturnalia 2:4:11, 395AD). Should this famous-joke of Caesar score above the basic structure of the Gospel Jesus, and can we ascribe its quotation-marks are dynamic with its original audience?

Re. the "James Michner" inter-woven actor (Jason Osborne on p4), faux wartime-characters have been demolished by heightening criticism. Each Gospel shows independent development paths (different audience and unique perspective), but in their shared-data especially in sections of Matthew+Luke considered 'borrowed' from Mark, there is no tendency to embellish the narratives. They also avoid smuggling the post-Easter faith into the pre-Easter history. By analysing the teachings of the New Testament church and in the Gospels contrasting the post-resurrection teachings of Jesus in Luke/Matthew with pre-Easter teachings, E.E.Lemico Lemcio makes the case that:

The hardest available evidence from the gospels has confirmed the thesis that the Evangelists produced narratives about Jesus of Nazareth that were free of blatant attempts to infuse and overlay this story with their own later and developed estimates of his teaching, miracles, passion, and person...With a consistency that can be charted on virtually every page of text, the thought and idiom of his era are not reproduced in theirs. Or, more correctly, they do not retroinject theirs into his.
...
This effort transcended merely putting verbs in past tenses and dividing the account into pre- and post-resurrection periods. Rather, they took care that terminology appropriate to the Christian era does not appear beforehand. Vocabulary characteristic prior to Easter falls by the wayside afterwards. Words common to both bear a different nuance in each. Idiom suits the time.

Link1,C.9 of www.christian-thinktank.com/stilltoc.html offers a selection of Lemico's catergories from the scores of these discontinues to demonstrate this:

* The Christological titles: "Son of Man" is used almost exclusively by Jesus of himself; the post-Easter community only uses it once of Jesus!
* The Well-defined term 'Lord' of the post-Easter community does not overlay the more 'vague' usages of 'lord' in the gospels.
* The obviously Christo-centric message of the post-Easter community does NOT obliterate the Patri-centric message of the pre-Easter Jesus;
* The pre-Easter Jesus talks about the gospel of "God" and of the "Kingdom"; the post-Easter message is that of the gospel of "Jesus".
* The focal command to go and make disciples, to baptize (in the name of the Trinity!), to obey Jesus' commands--finds NO place in the pre-Easter narratives of the life/teaching of Jesus. The evangelists have NOT 'pushed' that post-Easter teaching/mission 'back' into Jesus' past.

First, Mark,
The only post from JAK on my review of page 3 is this one.

Your quotation attributed to “JAK…” does not appear in that post.

I don’t doubt I made the statement, but it’s not on page 3 of this thread. And absent the context of other comment surrounding the single sentence, your quote includes no qualifiers which I use generously in analysis.

In any case, what does “skeptical” mean?

The “single character of Jesus” as most Christian dogma(s) expresses it are stories. These stories includes multiple examples of physics defied and the laws of science overwritten by miracles. Of course the pundits of religion want no skeptical review of those. Regardless of the number of stories told or how selectively edited to convey that supernatural Jesus, rational analysis of claims for Jesus do not support the claims made by Christianity. Those who wrote stories, heard the stories and wrote from what they heard. We know word-of-mouth is not reliable. Particularly extraordinary stories which require extraordinary evidence are unreliable as they lack the very evidence which would make them reliable.

Second, your first source is clearly a biased source favoring Christian mythology. That should make anyone who applies rational thinking “skeptical” of the validity of the source and of its claims.

No rational evidence supports the claim that anointing with oil has any effect on one’s “powers.” It’s a bogus claim. But, it’s a Christian claim. It’s a claim for truth of history, and it fails any clear, objective and skeptical review. It’s a story.

Additional “‘messiahing’ oil from cinnamon, cassia, spices, etc. and how to anoint an individual thus making them a Messiah” is bogus. (I am quoting from your first source.) Further, that entire source is filled with religious mythology which requires the suspension of rational intellect.

It’s a long reference, but its techniques are the same throughout. It takes a story and turns it into religious myth as my example just above demonstrates. The technique of prooftexting is used throughout your source making it worthless as any kind of valid history or valid account. And there was no skeptical review for the claims. Just read the multiplicity of unreasoned claims in your first source.

No reliability is presented there.

As I observed, belief in mythology requires, demands willing suspension of disbelief. The difference here and in watching “Alice in Wonderland” is that as we watch or read “Alice in Wonderland” we enjoy it by willingly suspending disbelief. We know it’s fiction. In religious doctrine/dogma, the delusion results in abdication of intellectual integrity. Religious dogma requires that people not only suspend disbelief but that they deny there is any disbelief. Hence: I believe, I believe, I believe.

Third, most biblical scholars are proponents of religious dogma. Few who recognize the absurdity of biblical claims have much interest in pouring through what is clearly fiction mixed with some supported, objectively established, history. Of course these “biblical scholars” (also a bogus self-edifying claim) do not recognize openly that they engage in perpetration of myth. To recognize that would be self-discrediting. “Alice in Wonderland”

As we read the examples you provided, virtually every line can be discredited by rational consideration just as I illustrated above regarding “oil” etc. making someone “a messiah.” It’s irrational. At a time when the masses were ignorant (as in unable to read or write and there were no books as we know books), mythologies could be sold and believers in the absurd could be found and even enlisted to perpetuate the myths.

Emperors and kings used such myths to elevate themselves in conquest of territory. However, despite all of that which can be documented, the claims of supernatural are not supported by rational, intellectually honest skeptical review. That is required for accuracy. Biblical Contradictions demonstrate a lack of historical accuracy.

Hence, quoting the Bible as if it were fact is quoting fiction to invent fact.

Your second source from “Christian-thinktank.com” is a pro-Christian, pro-religion website. In order to acquire objective, accurate, reliable data, what is required is skeptical review of detail. That is how we acquire accurate information. And even when we have multiple reporters we often must work personally to distinguish what are genuine facts and what is political propaganda.

This website is hardly objective.

It relies almost exclusively on truth by assertion. Where it can incorporate a fact or appear to be rational, it does that. We can take virtually any statement from this source and demonstrate that it relies on truth by assertion.. Those who regard themselves as “biblical scholars’ are in the business of truth by assertion for the most part. There are a few and some are well published today who are scholars in their commitment to objectivity in their research. They do not represent some religious point of view. So called biblical scholars who are Roman Catholic (for example) or Lutheran (for example) or Southern Baptist (for example) are pundits for a religious dogma. That they call themselves “scholars” does not make them scholars. It’s a distortion of meaning for “scholar.”

Let me illustrate with a modern example:

General Motor’s (GM) engineers engineers claim General Motor’s cars are superior to other cars built by other car makers. Compare engineer with a world like “scholar” as it is applied in your example. A biblical scholar who is a part of some (any) religious group is not free from bias, just as GM engineers are not free from bias. If we want objective, skeptically reviewed, intellectually honest review of cars, we don’t want a biased engineer paid by a car company. Likewise, we don’t want a biased scholar who has a particular interest in perpetrating propaganda for religions view and/or is paid by a religious organization to produce conclusion.

That should seem relatively simple. In addition, we can now point to more than 1,000 religious groups which call themselves Christian and which have their own “scholars.” At the same time, they are all defenders of Christian mythology. That marginalizes credibility even when they project agreement.

Religious dogma is filled with ambiguous language as well as absolute claim regarding dogma.

The “Concluding Remarks” (from your source) are truth by assertion as are the particulars of the claims.

“Concluding remarks” from your source:

”I have given tons and tons of detail to demonstrate the realistic and restrained and authentic character of the New Testament documents. I have shown from representative historians (of ALL 'bias' persuasions) that these documents are excellent material to work with in building historical understandings. I have cited professional historians to show that the 'skeptical' doubt is both NOT required and is, in fact, NOT admissible as proper method in scholarly historical research.”

“Skeptical doubt is both NOT required and is, in fact, NOT admissible as proper method in scholarly research.”

That’s an absurd claim. It attempts to dismiss skeptical review in favor of truth by assertion. It’s academic failure.

It’s flawed as any research with honest integrity and is propaganda.

None of your sources benefit anything other than claims to magical truth by assertion.

+++

Mark, you need not answer anything here. But internalize. You write clearly as one well indoctrinated. You put forward biased sources which claim we need no “skeptical doubt” and that “’skeptical doubt’ is not admissible as proper method in scholarly historical research.” (bold emphasis added)

Freedom of religion allows for you to believe anything you like. But contamination of a word like “scholar” or “scholarship” is dishonest by those who contaminate the meaning of the word.

And to rule out skeptical review is to admit that the material in question cannot tolerate skeptical review. Hence, all that is left is truth by assertion.

I don’t know where you found the reference to something I said and that you quoted, but it’s not on page 3 as my computer delivers this bb to me.

Biblical contradictions abound.

Consider just a few:

Biblical Contradictions

Additional Bible Contradictions

Gospel Contradictions

JAK

[_MarkF]

I don’t know where you found the reference to something I said and that you quoted, but it’s not on page 3 as my computer delivers this bb to me.

Apologies, please correct its Page to 4, as I was skipping back & forward.

Regards my 1st-source from the Uni of N.Carolina, I should have pointed to its marker, "From an historical-critical point of view, what do we know about John the Baptist and how do we know it?" Also, to add my omitted context to your "it requires magic" quote, its context continued about the transmition of reports (rather than what they contained):

... The other is that someone said something which others told as stories which later were written by hand and which were verbatim the words ... with absolute historical accuracy. The latter case is generally what Christianity has claimed. ... The evidence for such a claim as the latter is non-existent.

It requires magic. It requires suspension of disbelief.

Before I reply, and I may rest in the interim, can you please differentiate for me the operation of "skeptical review" and "truth by assertion" as responding to the vertebrae of sceptical arguments? I operate on counter-claim as it hones debate; why roll-out about Bible-contradictions if not to merit response?

It seems to you any claims of supernatural void its content as myth, ergo an interfering-God or anything Fortean (anomalous phenomena) must not be credited in scholarly thought as it contaminates rational intellect.

I regard "You write clearly as one well indoctrinated" as a somewhat self-conditioning stonewall.

[_JAK]

Mark,

I accept your change to page 4. But what you gave was a wonderful example of how people even unintentionally get it wrong. And to conclude that 2,000 years ago with no print, no books, certainly no television and video, people got it right is a leap of belief entirely irrational and unsustainable. We get things wrong today even with them right before us.

You appear to subscribe to truth by assertion. If not, your words don’t convey that you’re skeptical of biblical accounts.

In biblical accounts we have stories which are open to skeptical review. None of the claims for the violation of physics are sustainable. They rely on truth by assertion. No matter how well intentioned, observations are subjective and can be wrong.

In the case of emperors, kings, and perhaps some other individuals and events which are also reported by objective sources, we have a greater possibility for more nearly factual accounting. Please notice the qualifiers in this statement.

Claims which assert truth contrary to laws of physics should be regarded with great skepticism if not rejected outright. I addressed that in detail in post Mar 18, 2008 8:54 am (time stamp).

“Skeptical review” is the method of modern science. Many observe, test, study a conclusion based on evidence presented. They have opportunity to test for themselves and in groups (scientists working in teams). “Skeptical review” tends to be self correcting. That is, a conclusion which fails to meet the scrutiny of open, transparent, intellectually studied data is a rejected conclusion.

Example: If I claim there are little green men on the moon, that claim is open to the scrutiny of skeptical review. It’s a claim. Claims require evidence which is open to review. A claim which is sequestered from review is of no value. The burden of proof lies with the one or ones who are making the claims. The skeptic has no responsibility unless and until the claimant presents evidence for his case.

That is a general application of scientific method and applies to any assertion or claim. It does not need to be biblical only. However, since Christianity rests on truth by assertion, it lacks credibility in every case where there is no objective review by disinterested parties.

Your sources were clearly biased in favor of truth by assertion. Hence my conclusion that “You write clearly as one well indoctrinated.” I’m quite open to resend that observation should you demonstrate that evidence for claim is required if the claim is to be sustained. And evidence as I envision it is that which can stand up to skeptical review and reasoned questioning.. The examples from the websites you provided were clearly biased in favor of religious mythology. Such commitment to any form of Christian dogma/doctrine lack objectivity.

“Supernatural” is rejection or overwriting of natural law. I speak of physics and science (part of the same thing). I was quite specific with regard to “oil” as a conditioner to magically make a “messiah” as one of your sources characterized. It’s bogus as I state. It lacks objective, skeptical review from disinterested parties.

Objectivity is critical to the ascertaining of fact. Transparency is critical to the ascertaining of fact. Hence, truth by assertion is invalid. Claims of the supernatural in any venue are extraordinary claims which require extraordinary evidence if they are to be regarded as accurate or as valid.

Religion, generally, does not rely on fact. Dating back as far as we can find superstitions which later amalgamated into religion, such claims based on truth by assertion are not reliable. Today, we have many religious claims by different religious groups (as I identified in a previous post). In their disagreement, none can be accredited as right or [/i]true[/i].

We don’t generally argue about gravity. If you drop a glass, it falls to the floor/ground. No supernatural force suspends it in air at 5 feet above the ground. Gravity (for us and all of us on earth) is reliable. We rely on it. We depend upon it. We don’t rationally challenge it by jumping from tall buildings.

There is no “magic.” There is information. And we use that information to our advantage or benefit. Because religious myth dates far back in our history as humans, it relies on misinformation and superstition. However, there is absolutely no question that religion survives today and for many acts as a substitute for rational thinking. Most of us go to our doctor for reliable medicine. We want medicine which has been tested and has been subjected to skeptical review. We do not want our doctor to pour oil on our cancer and pronounce us cured. But in ancient religious myth, that’s how cure was approached. Ignorance produced myths. Absent genuine information, many people tended to believe the myths.

Most dreadful about that mythology is that, if it worked, a person such as Jesus (as described in Christianity) used it only selectively on certain people. The point here is that religious mythology is a story. Remember “Alice in Wonderland”? But as we watch that fiction, we know we are watching/reading fiction.

In Christian mythology, Jesus selective cured the sick. Why? Of course no evidence supports that he did. But the cruelty (if it were fact) was that only a selected few were “cured.” The rest were left sick and dying. It was preferential treatment.

Religion claims to be true. Miracles are claimed to be true. Again, no evidence subject to critical, skeptical review supports faith healing. Of course we can make a psychological case (science) that positive thinking can have a positive effect on health. Psychiatry (a branch of medical science) has established that positive mental attitude has a positive effect on recovery from illness. But, thinking one is healthy or believing in faith healing has not been demonstrated to cure ovarian cancer. Alzheimer’s disease is not cured by magic. There are treatments. Some day there may be a successful treatment or even cure. It will not by magic. It will not be a Jesus miracle.

It will be subjected to skeptical review, testing, hundreds if not thousands of test cases. Biblical claims are unreliable. Contradictions are prevalent (as I illustrated for you in an earlier post).

Truth by assertion is a claim absent evidence, skeptical review, testing, and objective analysis.

The more information we can obtain, the more likely we are to have reliable conclusion. Information is the antithesis of truth by assertion. The more which can be observed, tested, quantified, and confirmed, the more likely a conclusion is to have validity.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

When are you guys going to come to grips with the fact that historians accept the existence of Christ? Shouldn't historians have a better idea of what constitutes real history? Or should we leave it up to the hate bloggers who are experts in rhetoric?

JAK's attempt to recreate the historical standard is amusing, but ultimately it says more about his need to believe something that is untenable. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus. This has been laid out on the table many times. Historians accept it as compelling evidence. JAK doesn't.

So who is on the higher ground here?

For JAK, five hundred years of oral tradition is perfectly reliable when it comes to Alexander the Great. But a mere few decades of oral tradition regarding Jesus? Never! It is entirely unreliable! DIdn't you know the gospels are not perfectly identicial in their details? That means we should even deny the fact that he existed!

Amazing illicit leaps in logic here.

[_Jersey Girl]

dart

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

dart,

Would you post a list of what your evidence would be for the existence of Jesus?

[_marg]

When are you guys going to come to grips with the fact that historians accept the existence of Christ? Shouldn't historians have a better idea of what constitutes real history? Or should we leave it up to the hate bloggers who are experts in rhetoric?

Once again Kevin you inject ad hominem, kindly leave it out.


In my history book The World's History by H. Spodek, I'll quote the beginning of the section of Jesus

MythHistory:

How do we know?

The search for the historical Jesus has become something of a scholarly industry:

Historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke... There is Jesus as a politcal revolutionary by S.G.F. Brandon (1967), as a magician by Morton Smith (1978) as a Galilean charismatic by Geza Vermes (1984) as a Galilean rabbi by Bruce Chilton (1984) as a Hiullelite or proto-Pharisee by Harvey Falk(1985) as an Essene by Harvey Falk (1985) as an eschatological prophet by E.P Sanders (1985) (Crossan, p xxvii-xxviii)

And as prophet, exorcist, miracleworker, and marginal jew by J.P Meir (1991). It remains inconclusive however because the only records of Jesus' life are the four gospels, "the good news accounts," of the New Testament, and they are neither unbiased nor contemporary. These four books are the opening segment of the New Testament, the second section of the Christian Bible, which recounts the life, teachings and disciples of Jesus. Mark probably the oldest of the four gospels date to 70 C.E., forty years after Jesus' death. Like the later gospels attributed to Matthew, Luke and John, Mark assembles a collection of traditions about Jesus as they were transmitted amount his followerrs. Despite the gospelss' accounts of Jesus' multitudes of followers, he is not discussed in either Roman or Jewish records of the time.

So Dart the history of Jesus in this text doesn't discount Jesus' existence but at the same time it outlines the limitations of what we can reliably know of the history of Jesus. It can only relate what the evidence says, it can only point out where that information is obtained, it can not given the limited knowledge/evidence state conclusively to know with reliability anything of an actual Jesus, not even an actual person and in fact the writer points that out explicitly.

When information provided is from a party with a vested interest, when we know so little of the background of who is providing that information, it makes the information less reliable than sources we do have knowledge about, and who have no vested interest. Even if we acknowledge for argument sake that Jesus existed, it then becomes a problem of what information can we say with a high degree of reliability of that actual person, what they actually thought and did etc.