Evidence for Jesus

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

On what does Spodek base the assumption that Mark was written in 70 AD?

[_marg]

marg,

On what does Spodek base the assumption that Mark was written in 70 AD?

It is a history book of the world which spans from 5 million B.C.E. to the year 2000. (the text was published 2001)

Jesus is discussed is in a chapter called "Judaism and Christianity (600 B.C.E. to 1,100 C.E.)". At the end of the chapter is a bibliography listing 32 sources. For each fact or point he presents within each chapter he does not indicate cite the specific sources. I'd imagine he presents general consensus information from the sources he lists. If you have reason to question or disagree, then present it.

[_Jersey Girl]

marg,

On what does Spodek base the assumption that Mark was written in 70 AD?

It is a history book of the world which spans from 5 million B.C.E. to the year 2000. (the text was published 2001)

Jesus is discussed is in a chapter called "Judaism and Christianity (600 B.C.E. to 1,100 C.E.)". At the end of the chapter is a bibliography listing 32 sources. For each fact or point he presents within each chapter he does not indicate cite the specific sources. I'd imagine he presents general consensus information from the sources he lists. If you have reason to question or disagree, then present it.

I asked what Spodek bases the 70 AD assumption on. If I knew what that was, I might have a reason to disagree. I cannot agree or disagree with what I don't know, marg.

[_dartagnan]

It isn't ad hominem to reiterate that nobody here has come to grips with the fact that historians acknowledge the existence of Jesus. This should mean something to those who care about the question of history. If you want to know if brainwasing exists, ask the psychologists. If you want to know if smoking is bad for your health, then ask the medical professionals. If you want to know if someone really existed, then ask the historians. The consensus is overwhelmingly in the affirmative.

The hate bloggers are the primary sources for JAK's polemic because we have already established he isn't using historians. That isn't ad hominem, it is fact. I asked for a list of historians who support this nonsense, and thus far nobody has been able to produce.

Anyway, Spodek I have never heard of. Who is he? Whoever he is, he certainly isn't an expert in biblical history or biblical scholarship. He seems to be trying to cover too much history in a single volume, which means necessary details get avoided to save space. That dinky paragraph is supposed to cover the Jesus issue?

But he never denied the existence of Jesus anyway. He just said the gospels were written a couple decades after Jesus died, and that they were biased. Whoopty doo. Is that supposed to be news?

The issue here is whether Jesus existed. It isn't whether we can reliably know details about his life. I sense a shift in argument already.

[_JAK]

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.

Your misunderstandings are entirely apart from anything I’ve stated.

You appear to have no comprehension of what I have stated. Substitution of ad hominem for substantive discussion is not condusive to any meaningful dialogue.

Please reread carefully the following:

Excluding Skeptical Review is Flawed

Same Subject Different Post

Historical Evidence Issue

What’s In a History?

In Review, Return Modern Dangers of Religion

In this last one, you will find 10 separate links which demonstrate and support the subject title.

In the past few days we have seen “Dangers of Religion” in the sermons of Jeremiah Wright the pastor of Obama.

Please look at some present day religion at work which is dangerous. It's dangerous for the people of the US. It's dangerous to the political process. It's dangerous to the Constitution of the United States (the separation of church and state).

Jeremiah Wright on Hannity

Barack Obama distances himself from his own pastor who made inflammatory

Obama’s Speech in Philadelphia

Obama & Wright

These are present day examples of how quarrels and acrimonious use of religion is dangerous. It’s was dangerous historically as my many web links pointed out. It it is dangerous today as these few current websites demonstrate.

The US is about to elect a different President this year. And dragging down the discussion/debate of the issues which confront the US, the economy, the Iraq war, the collapsing dollar, what do we have?

We have people fighting over religion, what it means, what’s the correct belief, and personal attacks on individuals in the political area over religion.

Again, please re-read my comments in an effort to understand the comprehensive discussion of those comments. I intend to make no response to ad hominem nor to entire misunderstanding of my comments on the subject in this thread or in other threads. I am open for sincere questions or dialogue with those who elect to engage in that.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

Oh, so now you're trying to hop back onto the silly "dangers of religion" subject? If you'd pay attention, this thread is about the existence of Jesus. I've paid attention to what you've said about this in various threads and I have categorically refuted every single point you thought you established. But you never responded to these refutations (Alexander, coinage, sculptures, contemporary accounts, New Testament dating, etc), but instead tried to divert attention away from these by pumping out million word posts (never in response to me) that are mostly cut and past jobs of the post you're responding to, decorated with highlighted words and irrelevant hyperlinks.

No, I haven't read any of those responses to Jersey Girl and Moniker because you make it too painful to read. I doubt anyone has bothered to read through these. Quantity will never make up for quality.

How do you deal with the fact that historians reject your argument that Jesus never existed? This isn't too much to ask. You never address it.

And now you're jumping onto the ridiculous Jeremiah Wright topic, as if this proves a thing about the existence of Jesus or the dangers of religion. Wright is a political activist using the pulpit to spread his politics. This much should be obvious to those who have some sense of reason.

(OK, here's the part where you don't respond to anything I've said, someone else jumps in with a one-liner comment and you respond to that comment with a gazillion worded post.)

[_JAK]

marg,

On what does Spodek base the assumption that Mark was written in 70 AD?

It is a history book of the world which spans from 5 million B.C.E. to the year 2000. (the text was published 2001)

Jesus is discussed is in a chapter called "Judaism and Christianity (600 B.C.E. to 1,100 C.E.)". At the end of the chapter is a bibliography listing 32 sources. For each fact or point he presents within each chapter he does not indicate cite the specific sources. I'd imagine he presents general consensus information from the sources he lists. If you have reason to question or disagree, then present it.

marg,

Since I don’t have access to the book you’re discussing, let me ask you a question or two about what’s there.

You said:
“Jesus is discussed is in a chapter called ‘Judaism and Christianity (600 B.C.E. to 1,100 C.E.)’".

We know that “Jesus” as a name was not an uncommon name and is still used today in some places. Accents of course vary as they do with every word from language to language. source

How is the “discussion” of this name used in your resource? Is it confined to the use in Judiaism and Christianity?
If it is so confined, what appears to be the frequency of its use?

History of the name “Jesus”

JAK

[_JAK]

Oh, so now you're trying to hop back onto the silly "dangers of religion" subject? If you'd pay attention, this thread is about the existence of Jesus. I've paid attention to what you've said about this in various threads and I have categorically refuted every single point you thought you established. But you never responded to these refutations (Alexander, coinage, sculptures, contemporary accounts, New Testament dating, etc), but instead tried to divert attention away from these by pumping out million word posts (never in response to me) that are mostly cut and past jobs of the post you're responding to, decorated with highlighted words and irrelevant hyperlinks.

No, I haven't read any of those responses to Jersey Girl and Moniker because you make it too painful to read. I doubt anyone has bothered to read through these. Quantity will never make up for quality.

How do you deal with the fact that historians reject your argument that Jesus never existed? This isn't too much to ask. You never address it.

And now you're jumping onto the ridiculous Jeremiah Wright topic, as if this proves a thing about the existence of Jesus or the dangers of religion. Wright is a political activist using the pulpit to spread his politics. This much should be obvious to those who have some sense of reason.

(OK, here's the part where you don't respond to anything I've said, someone else jumps in with a one-liner comment and you respond to that comment with a gazillion worded post.)

You “haven’t read any of those responses to Jersey Girl and Moniker.”

Yet you claim to know what I stated as you state:

“How do you deal with the fact that historians reject your argument that Jesus never existed?

+++

This kind of misunderstanding is exactly why I suggested that you read them for the first time. You misrepresent what I have stated.

I did not make the argument your question implies with regard to “Jesus never existed.” Had you read carefully all my comments, you would know that.

The point for Jeremiah Wright was not about the individual personally, but rather how religion is a poison even as we speak here. In this case, Wright’s comments were a poison to Obama, although Wright did not intend that.

The relevancy of the current religious controversy between preacher Wright and candidate Obama is quite linked to interpretations of Jesus. The “Evidence for Jesus” which Obama sees as the real Jesus of the religion is different from the “Evidence for Jesus” which Wright sees as the real Jesus of the religion. The "evidence for Jesus," the impact of Christian history, the details of "evidence" are clearly disputed by Obama as he has now made the Philadelphia speech which distanced Obama's historical understanding and Wright's historical understanding of the same individual.

It’s directly related to Jersey Girl’s topic as “evidence” in this particular case is relative to a multiplicity of interpretations. It’s relative to what some regard as fact and others regard as fiction with regard to a story told 2,000 years ago, retold, interpreted, written, re-written, translated, etc.

The point of my previous discussion and briefly re-stated here is that there are fundamental disagreements on “evidence” as it becomes specific and detailed. That is, pro-Christian “scholars” reach different conclusions from one another. Neutral “historical scholars” reach different conclusions yet regarding the particulars, the details of not only “existence of Jesus” but of claims made about the character.

Again, I suggest that you read my comments. Your posts demonstrate you don't understand them. Reading them is a prerequisite to understanding them.

The “Evidence for Jesus” questions which Jersey Girl posed are quite complex as my discussions detail (which you admit not to have read). I detailed the complexity of the issue in a number of posts to which I have given you reference.

In What’s In a History? and subsequent links relevant to that discussion, I prefaced links with this:

“Previously, I made some distinctions on the matter of historical. There are various interpretations for that despite the fact that on the surface it appears simple.”

Prior to that, I discussed the problematic issues with attempts to secure and distinguish fact from conjecture and from fiction. "Evidence" in this question is not simplistic. Conclusions of scholarly review do not agree.

I’ll not repeat the lengthy discussions which you did not read on first posting. Nor will I attempt on this topic to address your misconstructions of what I stated which you did not read by your testimony here.

JAK

[_dartagnan]

This kind of misunderstanding is exactly why I suggested that you read them for the first time. You misrepresent what I have stated.I did not make the argument your question implies with regard to “Jesus never existed.”

I am not talking about your comments to marg, Jersey Girl and Moniker. I am talking about your comments in past threads, so don't tell me I am "misrepresenting" your argument when I say you argue that Jesus never existed. Here is something you said in another discussion:

"...the fact that nothing was written of Jesus until 30 to 110 years after his death is strong evidence that there never was a historical Jesus. It became a story passed down for decades before anyone considered the story important enough to put into some language. AND we have no original scripts, only stories long after the fact and, more importantly, only translations after the fact for the multiple and contradictory claims contained within the many denominations, sects, and cults of Christianity." http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=4813

You were completely trounced in that discussion and you never recovered. Instead of responding to the refutation provided by Richard, you left the discussion. Now you're trying to tell me you never argued for the non-existence of Jesus? In this particular thread, after GoodK flat out denies any evidence for the existence of Jesus, you came in and said:

"I’m skeptical that any reliable evidence for a singular character of Jesus can be produced. One might make a case for a character of similar description but only on the grounds that word of mouth had some validity over time."

Again, obviously historians disagree with you. You simply don't understand or accept what constitutes historical evidence in scholarship.

Your problem is that I do know what you've argued.

But the Bible claims exact quotations verbatim which were not written at the time by anyone. The notion that exact words in fact were recorded and then translated into many languages verbatim is the problem and the challenge for a singular historical individual as the biblical proponents claim.

Again, this is only a problem for those wo are insisting on ascertaining the "exact quotations verbatim" which no one really is worried about except you. It is an irrelevant issue that has no bearing on the historicity of Jesus. We know that the sermon on the mount probably wasn't given while a scribe wrote down "verbatim" what was said. Even with pen and paper it would be highly unlikely that no mistakes would have been made. But none of the gospels conflict on any points that undermine teh historicity of Jesus. They are different accounts of the same thing, and the fact that they remain different is only evidence that subsequent scribes didn't feel it made a difference or else they would have made sure they all agreed in all their details. That has never been an issue for theologians or historians. It is only an issue for "skeptics" because they are antagonistic and irrational.

Christianity has known the details don't always match. And this is only evidence for their authenticity since that is precisely what one would expect from different people writing about the same experiences. But this doesn't mean it doesn't constitute reliable evidence that Jesus existed. Of course it does. Historians don't follw your illogic, and for good reason too.

Were it not for Constantine the Great and his ancestors, Christianity might never have made it past his descendents.

Call for references. This statement in itself shows how unfamiliar you are with early Christianity and its popularity as a persecuted, yet thriving religion.

However, because he and his descendents had wealth and power and because they used Christianity to advance their own power and influence, Christianity did survive through many schisms.

Again, a call for references. It seems clear that your miunderstanding of early Christianity is what drives your several erroneous conclusions. You never respond with sources backing up your claims. "Truth by assertion" anyone?

[_dartagnan]

The point for Jeremiah Wright was not about the individual personally, but rather how religion is a poison even as we speak here. In this case, Wright’s comments were a poison to Obama, although Wright did not intend that.

The point doesn't exist since the poison is found in political ranting. The only time I heard him mention the Bible was when he said the Bible condemns innocent killings. The rest was race-baiting anti-American ranting. There is nothing "religious" about that.

The relevancy of the current religious controversy between preacher Wright and candidate Obama is quite linked to interpretations of Jesus. The “Evidence for Jesus” which Obama sees as the real Jesus of the religion is different from the “Evidence for Jesus” which Wright sees as the real Jesus of the religion. The "evidence for Jesus," the impact of Christian history, the details of "evidence" are clearly disputed by Obama as he has now made the Philadelphia speech which distanced Obama's historical understanding and Wright's historical understanding of the same individual.

Any nutjob can claim a historical figure condones something. That doesn't mean we can't know anything about that historical figure simply because said nutjob expresses an opinion. Theologians, historians and experts in hermeneutics, understand what Jesus would have and wouldn't have condoned. The disagreement in scholarship isn't anything like you would have it be. The disagreements are for the most part, theological, not historical.

For you to use Wright as some kind of evidence against Jesus is down right irresponsible.