Historical Evidence of Jesus Christ

[Apologia Xristou]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?:blush:

[rocketman]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?:blush:

I think it was Tacitus who made note of a Jesus being crucified in Judea in the year 33 AD, but he didn't say anything of note about him. There are also the pseudopigraphical or Gnostic gospels, but there are all sorts of things about Jesus in those that do or don't correllate with the 4 in the Bible.

[Amazing Rando]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?:blush:

Here is the best collection of writings countering the Christ-myth hypothesis that I've ever seen. It's got an overview of what secular historians have to say on the issue, a detailed rebuttal to Earl Doherty, leading Christ-myther as well as some other great stuff. Bede's Library (http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm)

Also see JP Holding's Tektonics.org site for some good material that demolishes the arguments of the likes of Doherty.

[Ric]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?:blush:

Please read the book The Case for Christ (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/140100337?item_no=20930&netp_id=115837&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW) .

The author was an atheist trying to prove Christianity wrong and he ended up being saved do to his research. :thumb:

[Apologia Xristou]

Please read the book The Case for Christ (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/140100337?item_no=20930&netp_id=115837&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW) .

The author was an atheist trying to prove Christianity wrong and he ended up being saved do to his research. :thumb:
Hey there! Thank you very much for your suggestion to read The Case for Christ. I have read this book, and I found it very fascinating. However, many atheists have refuted the claims made in this book by stating all of the extra-biblical references to Jesus were forgeries. Any Suggestions?

[Amazing Rando]

Hey there! Thank you very much for your suggestion to read The Case for Christ. I have read this book, and I found it very fascinating. However, many atheists have refuted the claims made in this book by stating all of the extra-biblical references to Jesus were forgeries. Any Suggestions?

They can state they were forgeries all you'd like, but that doesn't make it true. The most famously contested passage, that from the Jewish historian Josephus, almost certainly contains some interpolated material, but very very few serious scholars actually believe the entire thing is a forgery.

[Ric]

Hey there! Thank you very much for your suggestion to read The Case for Christ. I have read this book, and I found it very fascinating. However, many atheists have refuted the claims made in this book by stating all of the extra-biblical references to Jesus were forgeries. Any Suggestions?

Do you have the book "The Case for Christ"? :???:

Look in the back at all of the footnotes and ask your atheists friends to prove those wrong. Trust me - they will go " :doh: " !!!

[Apologia Xristou]

Do you have the book "The Case for Christ"? :???:

Look in the back at all of the footnotes and ask your atheists friends to prove those wrong. Trust me - they will go " :doh: " !!!
I do indeed own "The Case for Christ". However, unfortunately it is back at my house. I will certainly take a look at those footnotes this weekend though. :wink:

[RC]

I may stand corrected, but I believe Jesus or the early church is mentioned breifly in Josephus. I think he also confirms aspects of the Gospels to be true. Like I say it has been years since I dove in to Josephus' writing, however, I do believe there is some info there. In a round about way the Atheists are fueling your desire for the truth. We as Christians know what the truth is and should continue to educate ourselves. Keep up the fight brother. Praise be to you CLW.

[jason]

I must say that I have been completely shocked at the information I have been reading on atheist and New Age web sites stating there is no evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus. Does anyone have any strong arguments for Jesus' historicity other than the non-New Testament writings, which atheists argue are Christian interpolations and forgeries?:blush:Of course they argue like that. Any other tact will doom their argument.

What is wrong with the 4 gospels as evidence ?

Nothing, unless you have decided in advance that they cannot be true and cannot be trusted to give you evidence.

But that begs the question mightily.

If I recommend an excellent article to you. Bill Craig has written a number of articles on the historicity of Jesus, have a look here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html).

But the one article that is good to answer your question about why they talk as they do, try, Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover1.html) Dr. William Lane Craig.

It deals with the methodology of the clowns over at the Jesus Seminar that you see get reported in the papers from time to time.

Pay attention to the methodology they use (and what is so screamingly obviously suspect about it) and then beware of people smuggling in these sorts of assumptions when they look at the Gospels and the evidence for Christ.

Suffice to say, if you start with an assumption like, "Miracles are impossible", is it really a surprise that you do not consider the evidence about Jesus to be credible or reliable. It has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence though. You've decided ahead of time that any miracle claim you find must be bogus.

You'll find such methodology is the stock in trade of the skeptic ... Look for a persons presuppositions supplied by their worldview in these sorts of discussions and it will yeild vast amounts of information about why they draw the conclusions they do. It rarely has anything to do with evidence on the skeptics side in my experience, both as a christian and formerly as an atheist (not that I would have admitted that at the time).

Jason

[Omega Red]

A good start - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html and http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html.


Josephus- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html and
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus

Tacitus - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

Thallus- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html and http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_THL.html

Pliny the Younger – http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_PL.html

Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_ST.html

Lucian (mid-2nd century) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_LUC.html

Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_MBS.html

Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TAL.html

Also: Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3) and Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).

It is best to work through the reading list used to compose these net-articles. As previously said in posts above, there is a distinct lack of historical reconstruction of the processes that brought the NT/extra-Biblical documents into being, but having read some of Vorkosigan posts' my reading list is not main stream enough.

Hope it helps

[Ric]

I do indeed own "The Case for Christ". However, unfortunately it is back at my house. I will certainly take a look at those footnotes this weekend though. :wink:

That's all I can ask of you. :smile:

There are numberous footnotes for each chapter that backs up all that is said in Lee's book. :thumb:

God Bless! :smile:

[Apologia Xristou]

A good start - http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html and http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html.


Josephus- http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html and
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#josephus

Tacitus - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

Thallus- http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jrthal.html and http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_THL.html

Pliny the Younger – http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_PL.html

Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_ST.html

Lucian (mid-2nd century) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_LUC.html

Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_MBS.html

Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses) - http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TAL.html

Also: Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3) and Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).

It is best to work through the reading list used to compose these net-articles. As previously said in posts above, there is a distinct lack of historical reconstruction of the processes that brought the NT/extra-Biblical documents into being, but having read some of Vorkosigan posts' my reading list is not main stream enough.

Hope it helps


Hey there. Thank you for sending me all of these links. I am sure they will be valuable resources for supplying evidence for Jesus' historicity. :smile:

[Ric]

:bump:

[Tophet]

This post is a continuation of a discussion first begun on the thread, "Questionable Prophecies by Joseph Smith", which is more appropriate here.


TROUT:
A lot of people say a lot of different things about Jesus, I think that the record is clear that in fact He was an historical figure.

POWELL:
Maybe we'll discuss this mythical view later in another place.

TOPHET:
Try:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sh...storicity+Jesus

POWELL:
Thanks.

John Powell



POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

TOPHET:
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.


POWELL:
Since Tophet seems to think that merely quoting scriptures proves he's right

TOPHET:
Actually, I am citing eyewitness testimony. In this manner the eyewitnesses speak for themselves.

JOHN MORMON:
Excellent, then let Joseph Smith give His eyewitness account of his first vision of the Father and the Son.

You're sidetracking, John. I'm not talking about Joseph Smith's "first vision." I'm talking about eyewitness testimony, and historicity, of Jesus Christ.


POWELL:
. . . then I will let John Mormon quote Mormon scriptures "proving" that Mormons are right.

You are sidetracking again, John.


JOHN MORMON:
Given what you said, perhaps you'll see that Mormon Doctrine is Biblical.

Another red herring. Poo.


JOHN MORMON:
Good, Tophet. Mormons agree with that, but they think the Book of Mormon counts as scripture and that there are other prophets besides those mentioned in the Bible.

Yes, and you're sidetracking yet again. You haven't disproved the historicity of Jesus Christ.


JOHN MORMON:
Although those N.T. passages were speaking specifically about the O.T

Well, here are the passages. Tell me where the O.T. is mentioned, specifically:


2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

2 Peter 1
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


JOHN MORMON:
You realize, don't you that by those words Paul and Peter were specifically thinking of the OLD TESTAMENT, right?

TOPHET:
Not necessarily. Peter refers to Paul’s epistles as scripture and Paul refers to the Gospel accounts as scripture.


JOHN MORMON:
I agree that Paul's epistles and the Gospels are scripture, but where does Paul SPECIFICALLY claim this?

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

These events are recorded in the Gospel accounts.

See here:
http://www.tektonics.org/truthfulness.htm#fourg

and here:
http://www.tektonics.org/truthfulness.htm#fivem


POWELL:
It depends on what brand of Christianity.

TOPHET:

1 Corinthians 1

Divisions in the Church

10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[1] "; still another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into[2] the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1 Corinthians 3
4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

These verses demonstrate there is no "brand" of Christianity other than itself.



JOHN MORMON:
The existence of huge numbers of separate denominations of Christianity is a clear rebuttal to your claim.

First, it is not “my” claim. It is Paul’s claim in the above verses, which you are ignoring.

Second, the definition of “Christianity” is a clear rebuttal to your claim.

Oxford English Dictionary

Christianity:

1. The whole body of Christians, the Christian part of the world, CHRISTENDOM. Obs.
2. The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Chris•ti•an•i•ty P Pronunciation Key (kr s ch - n -t , kr s t -)
n.
1. The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Christians as a group; Christendom.
3. The state or fact of being a Christian.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Christianity
\Chris*tian"i*ty\, n. [OE. cristiente, OF. cristient['e], F. chr['e]tient['e], fr. L. christianitas. ] 1. The religion of Christians; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ.

2. Practical conformity of one's inward and outward life to the spirit of the Christian religion

3. The body of Christian believers. [Obs.]

WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Christianity
n 1: the system of Christian beliefs and practices [syn: Christianity, Christian religion] 2: a group of Christians; any group professing Christian doctrine or belief; "church is a biblical term for assembly" [syn: church, Christian church, Christianity] 3: the collective body of Christians throughout the world and history; "for a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church was the principal church of Christendom" [syn: Christendom, Christianity]


Oxford English Dictionary
Christian, a. and n.
A. adj.
1. a. Of persons and communities: Believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ.

2. a. Of things: Pertaining to Christ or his religion: of or belonging to Christianity.
B. n.
1. a. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Chris•tian P Pronunciation Key (kr s ch n)
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Christian
\Chris"tian\, n. [L. christianus, Gr. ?; cf. AS. cristen. See Christ.] 1. One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. --Acts xi. 26.


The standard is the standard. The standard is not those who claim to follow the standard. In Christianity, Jesus is the standard.

The head of the church is Christ. Jesus is the author and finisher of the Christian faith.

Hebrews 12:2
looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.


Are you claiming that every sect of self-proclaimed Christians has the same beliefs about God, Jesus, Salvation, etc.?

No. Because those who claim to follow the standard is not the standard. The standard of Christianity is Jesus Christ.


Granted there can only be ONE true "brand" of Christianity, but the controversy is which, if any of the existing churches claiming to be Christian, is it.

You'll find the answer in the definition of Christianity.

Where in the Bible does Jesus say you have to join a church to be saved, and to have eternal fellowship with Him?

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Did Jesus say the church is the way? No. He is the way.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Who mediates between God and men? Only Jesus. Certainly not the church.


This is precisely the question young Joseph Smith had and why he asked God for the answer and had his First Vision and was called to restore that true "brand" of Christianity to the Earth.

Yes, yes, another red herring. Just like this one:



JOHN MORMON:
Scripture Verse:
3 Ne 11:29-30
29 For verily, verily I [Jesus] say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

TOPHET:
Not all contention is bad.

JOHN MORMON:
I didn't claim it was.

Therefore, we don’t need to sidetrack any further on this issue.



JOHN MORMON:
Your method of debate, Tophet, seems to be to quote scriptures without explanation of their relevance.


The scriptures are self-explanatory, as the eyewitness accounts provided the answers to the questions you raised.

Your method of debate, John, is to complicate matters by introducing red herrings and introduce new tangents to the discussion. Why not stay focused? Or are you admitting you can’t handle the current argument by sidetracking to other issues?



POWELL:
Perhaps Paul's brand of Christianity didn't need a historical Jesus and an empty tomb.

Well as we can see from Paul's testimony, it does:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4

The Resurrection of Christ

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,


POWELL:
Just because His body was buried does not mean His body came back to life leaving the tomb empty.

TOPHET:
The eyewitnesses say He did.

POWELL:
Sure, Tophet, and eyewitnesses claimed that Lehi and his family went to the Americas and Jesus visited them 600 years later. It's right there in the BOM.


You're sidetracking again. This topic is about Jesus, not Lehi. BOM was written by Joseph Smith, not by contemporary eyewitnesses. The New Testament accounts were written, and circulated, by people living at the time of the events themselves.


POWELL:
Perhaps Jesus was resurrected in spirit form.


Luke 24
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?

39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.

41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"

42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."




POWELL:
Who was the AUTHOR of this account, Tophet,

Luke.


and WHERE in the book does the author identify himself?

The title of the book.

John 20
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"


POWELL:
Who was the author of this account, Tophet,

John


and WHERE in the book does the author identify himself?

The title of the book.

More information can be found here:
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html

I cite the following to demonstrate Paul's recount of the historical event of the resurrection -- and here you go sidetracking again.


TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:5
5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

POWELL:
Who did Jesus appear to first, wasn't it to Mary before Peter?

TOPHET:
Possibly. But Paul didn’t say "appeared to Peter first," did he?

POWELL:
That's the implication.

Not at all. Paul’s statement is still true even without naming Mary – or the other women at the tomb. There is therefore no discrepancy.


Paul is apparently listing the order of appearances.
Fiirst Cephas (not Peter)


Cephas is Peter.
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[ 1:42 Both Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) mean rock.] ).



, then the twelve, then over 500 at one time, then James, then all the apostles, then Paul.

According to the Gospels, Jesus did not appear to the "twelve" because Judas wasn't with them. Jesus appeared to the "ten" (minus Thomas) and then to the "eleven" (including Thomas). Don't you agree?


According to the Gospels, and Acts, Jesus did appear to the twelve. Matthew had replaced Judas. With Thomas that makes twelve. Paul didn’t detail every single visit by Jesus in His post-resurrection visits. Neither did he say “then to the twelve at one time” as he did to the “over 500.” He didn’t need to. There is therefore no discrepancy.


POWELL:
Apparently, the "appearance" of Jesus to Paul was no different than the appearances to the others. These "appearances" were some sort of vision or "seeing Jesus" revealed in the Old Testament or something like that.

TOPHET:
No. They were actual physical appearances, as reported by the eyewitnesses in the accounts I listed above.

POWELL:
Was Paul's experience a "physical appearance" of Jesus or some kind of personal experience? If it was physical why didn't the others see Jesus?


Jesus’ directive was apparently for Paul alone, but his companions did see the light from heaven, they witnessed Paul blinded by the light, and they heard the conversation. Yes, it was a physical encounter.

The fact remains Jesus Christ had a physical resurrection.

TOPHET:
Remember, that's more than 500 eyewitnesses on several occasions.



POWELL:
If that sounds so impressive to you, Tophet, then perhaps you should be impressed by the multitude of men, women, and children in the Americas who saw the resurrected Jesus in 3 Nephi 11. According to the BOM, they actually touched His body.


Whee, another red herring. Since you no longer believe in the Book of Mormon, then why don’t you explain why you don’t believe in the account?

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians was in public circulation. The 500+ eyewitnesses he cites could be cross-examined as to the veracity of the resurrection. How can the same be claimed for the Book of Mormon?

TOPHET:
1 Cor 15:9-19
9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

The Resurrection of the Dead

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.


POWELL:
That's assuming there was a historical Jesus.

TOPHET:
2 Peter 1:16
16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Why would you ignore Peter's testimony?


POWELL:
I didn't.

When someone makes a big deal about them not lying or not being deceived then it's an indication that they are more likely lying or being deceived than if they hadn't made such a big deal about it.

Eyewitness testimony is a “big deal.” By your rationale, then, everyone who swears to tell the truth in a court of law “are more likely lying or being deceived.” Your assertion is nonsense.


How do you know, Tophet, that the Peter of the Gospel accounts penned the words in 2 Peter and not some one else?
Because those documents circulated in the Near East and were thus available to anyone with the means, motive, and opportunity for cross-examination, and to refute them if they were erroneous. Jude, for example, referenced 2 Peter.

For a more detailed answer, read the essay found here:

http://members.surfeu.fi/foragnostics/sgtestimony.htm

and the essays found here:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ynotpeter1.html

and

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ynotpeter2.html


Because it's in the Bible so it must be true?

Because they are multiple trustworthy eyewitness accounts unrefuted by contemporaries with the means, motive, and opportunity to do so.

[DunnySaze]

Yes, and you're sidetracking yet again. You haven't disproved the historicity of Jesus Christ.

I believe you're the one who is supposed to be supporting the historicity of Christ. And since you are using scripture itself as evidence, I think the point that the Mormon scripture likewise can be used thusly is a valid one.


Second, the definition of “Christianity” is a clear rebuttal to your claim.

That a single definition can be given for Christianity does not negate the possiblility that there are many "brands" of Christianity. Some with mutually exclusive doctrine. We can also give a single define for "beer", but that doesn't negate the fact there are many different brands of beer.


The New Testament accounts were written, and circulated, by people living at the time of the events themselves.

Is this correct? According to Luke 1:1-4, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnessess and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it semed good also to me to write an orderly account to you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." The writer of Luke is clearly telling us that he personally wasn't a witness, but rather he had investigated things and believes those who were the witnessess.


The title of the book.

That the title of the book was Luke (or John) doesn't necessarily mean this is the name of the author. The question was where in the book does the author identify himself.


I cite the following to demonstrate Paul's recount of the historical event of the resurrection -- and here you go sidetracking again.

I think the point is that if we accept the Gospels as accurate historical accounts, then by what objective standard should we exclude the BoM as also being an accurate account of eye witness testimony?


Eyewitness testimony is a “big deal.” By your rationale, then, everyone who swears to tell the truth in a court of law “are more likely lying or being deceived.” Your assertion is nonsense.

Eyewitness testimony can be suspect for many reasons. The witness may be lying. They may be mistaken. They may have not have witnessed important details and fill in the blanks with their imagination, totally subconciously. There is a lot of research on false memories, where people "remember" events that never happened. They aren't lying. They really think they remember, but the event never happened.

[John Powell]

TOPHET:
This post is a continuation of a discussion first begun on the thread, "Questionable Prophecies by Joseph Smith", which is more appropriate here.


POWELL:
Nice try, Tophet, but the forum you posted this in, Comparative Religions 101, is for theists only. I've therefore posted my reply in the Apologetics 301 section under the thread name "Tophet's historical evidence of Jesus Christ."

I welcome our continued discussion there.

John Powell

[Lazy Agnostic]

Please read the book The Case for Christ (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/140100337?item_no=20930&netp_id=115837&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW) .

The author was an atheist trying to prove Christianity wrong and he ended up being saved do to his research.
Well, the author made a poor skeptic's advocate. He allowed the thelogians he interviewed to get away with responses a knowledgeable skeptic wouldn't have.

See JPHolding's refutation of Paul Jacobsen's critique and an on-going dialogue between the two: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8322&page=1&pp=16

[Apologia Xristou]

I believe you're the one who is supposed to be supporting the historicity of Christ. And since you are using scripture itself as evidence, I think the point that the Mormon scripture likewise can be used thusly is a valid one.



That a single definition can be given for Christianity does not negate the possiblility that there are many "brands" of Christianity. Some with mutually exclusive doctrine. We can also give a single define for "beer", but that doesn't negate the fact there are many different brands of beer.




Is this correct? According to Luke 1:1-4, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnessess and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it semed good also to me to write an orderly account to you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." The writer of Luke is clearly telling us that he personally wasn't a witness, but rather he had investigated things and believes those who were the witnessess.






I think the point is that if we accept the Gospels as accurate historical accounts, then by what objective standard should we exclude the BoM as also being an accurate account of eye witness testimony?




Eyewitness testimony can be suspect for many reasons. The witness may be lying. They may be mistaken. They may have not have witnessed important details and fill in the blanks with their imagination, totally subconciously. There is a lot of research on false memories, where people "remember" events that never happened. They aren't lying. They really think they remember, but the event never happened.

Comparing different brands of beer and with different "brands" of Christianity is logically comparing apples with oranges. Truth by its very nature is narrow, and Christianity's central doctrines claim to be true. Therefore, only the "brands" of Christianity which align themselves with the core doctrines taught by Christ can be true. All other "brands" must be false.


Luke never claims to have been an eyewitness.However, the fact that Luke had talked to many eyewitnesses adds to the credibility of Luke's case.

The eary church father verified the authorship of each of the books, and all maintain the books were written by the author, whose name the book is entitled with.


Well, honestly, there are many objective standards by which we should exclude the BOM as also being an accurate account of eye witness testimony. For one example, unlike the gospels, Luke's especially, archaeology has never confirmed anything unique to the Book of Mormon, specifically evidence of the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon.


All eleven disciples were intentionally lying/having false memories? What about the five hundred people Jesus appeared to after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6)? Jesus Himself assured His disciples that the Holy Spirit would remind them of everything that occurred. John 14:26 states "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

[Apologia Xristou]

One last thought concerning the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, did not claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events described in the Book of Mormon.

[DunnySaze]

Comparing different brands of beer and with different "brands" of Christianity is logically comparing apples with oranges. Truth by its very nature is narrow, and Christianity's central doctrines claim to be true. Therefore, only the "brands" of Christianity which align themselves with the core doctrines taught by Christ can be true. All other "brands" must be false.

Fine. Then which ones are true?


Luke never claims to have been an eyewitness.However, the fact that Luke had talked to many eyewitnesses adds to the credibility of Luke's case.

The original poster claimed the authors of the gospels were eyewitnessess. My point was, and you agree, that this is incorrect.


The eary church father verified the authorship of each of the books, and all maintain the books were written by the author, whose name the book is entitled with.

So these are the authors as accepted by tradition?


Well, honestly, there are many objective standards by which we should exclude the BOM as also being an accurate account of eye witness testimony. For one example, unlike the gospels, Luke's especially, archaeology has never confirmed anything unique to the Book of Mormon, specifically evidence of the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

The mention of real persons, places or events does not mean necessarily prove the document accurate. There are many fictional accounts today that mention real people, places and events. I'm not saying the Bible is fictional. I'm just saying this does not prove it isn't.


All eleven disciples were intentionally lying/having false memories? What about the five hundred people Jesus appeared to after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6)? Jesus Himself assured His disciples that the Holy Spirit would remind them of everything that occurred. John 14:26 states "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

You can't use the document as it's own verification. And I was talking about the problem of accepting eyewitness testimony in general, as the poster was claiming such testimony is a "big deal" and used as evidence that testimony used in courts today. I was pointing out that such testimony is hardly problem free.

[Apologia Xristou]

Comparing different brands of beer and with different "brands" of Christianity is logically comparing apples with oranges. Truth by its very nature is narrow, and Christianity's central doctrines claim to be true. Therefore, only the "brands" of Christianity which align themselves with the core doctrines taught by Christ can be true. All other "brands" must be false. Fine. Then which ones are true?





The ones that align themselves with the core doctrines taught by Christ.




The original poster claimed the authors of the gospels were eyewitnessess. My point was, and you agree, that this is incorrect.

Not really. The original poster claimed: “The New Testament accounts were written, and circulated, by people living at the time of the events themselves.” The individuals Luke obtained information from were indeed people living at the time of the events themselves.


So these are the authors as accepted by tradition?

These were the authors accepted by the early church historians.

The mention of real persons, places or events does not mean necessarily prove the document accurate. There are many fictional accounts today that mention real people, places and events. I'm not saying the Bible is fictional. I'm just saying this does not prove it isn't.

I will agree with you to an extent when you say the mention of real persons, places or events does not necessarily prove the document to be accurate. However, the confirmation of historical figures, places, and events does add credibility to a document’s awareness of history. Also, the key difference between the fictionaly accounts today that mention real people, places, and events, and the historical accounts presented in the gospels, is that unlike the gospels, fictional accounts are not designed to persuade people that all of their contents are true. The author of the Gospel of John states: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30-31). Furthermore, unlike the the authors of fictional accounts, the authors of the gospels had such a high degree of confidence that what they were writing was true, that they were willing to die for the contents of their documents.



You can't use the document as it's own verification.
I am actually using many different documents to accomadate the information contained in each. Paul’s letter to the Corinthains is considered by scholars to be a separate, earlier, document in relation to the documents known as the gospels.



And I was talking about the problem of accepting eyewitness testimony in general, as the poster was claiming such testimony is a "big deal" and used as evidence that testimony used in courts today. I was pointing out that such testimony is hardly problem free.
My point was that in the case of the gospels, the general problems associated with witness testimony would not be nearly as major, as other eye witness accounts, because God provided Jesus’ disciples with a supernatural method of remembering details. Also, while eye witness testimony in general is hardly problem free, the entire purpose of having witness testimony is to obtain the overall picture of how an incident or incidents occurred. Thus, one can reasonably reconstruct scenarios based on witness testimonies, even if they are not Divinely guided.

[Minnesota]

I remember reading that Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, was always a Christian, and that the conversion to a Christianity was a ploy to sell his books. I regret that I can't remember the source.

[Tophet]

The original poster claimed the authors of the gospels were eyewitnessess. My point was, and you agree, that this is incorrect.


Not really. The original poster claimed: “The New Testament accounts were written, and circulated, by people living at the time of the events themselves.” The individuals Luke obtained information from were indeed people living at the time of the events themselves.


Thank you, clwinche.

I would add that Luke indeed was an eyewitness in his travels with Paul. Paul also verifies this in Colossians 4:14, 2 Timothy 4:11, and Philemon 1:24.

Also noteworthy is that Paul considers Luke's gospel to be Scripture, side by side with a verse from Deuteronomy:

1 Timothy 5:18
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,"[Deuteronomy 25:4] and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."[ Luke 10:7]

[jason]

I remember reading that Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, was always a Christian, and that the conversion to a Christianity was a ploy to sell his books. I regret that I can't remember the source.Then why bother repeating such a rumor ?

Rather convenient and if true no doubt would have been touted long and loud by those who wrote critiques no doubt.

Jason

[Tophet]

I believe you're the one who is supposed to be supporting the historicity of Christ.

Check out the earlier posts in this thread, and the corresponding links.
To which I would add:

Are the Biblical Documents Reliable? by Jimmy Williams
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part One
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC0802W2.htm

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Two
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC0902W2.htm

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Three
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC1002W2.htm

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text -- Part Four
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC1102W2.htm

Textual Trysts: The Textual Reliability of the New Testament
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_01.html


Eyewitness testimony can be suspect for many reasons. The witness may be lying. They may be mistaken. They may have not have witnessed important details and fill in the blanks with their imagination, totally subconciously. There is a lot of research on false memories, where people "remember" events that never happened. They aren't lying. They really think they remember, but the event never happened.

That's a valid observation. So how do we know whether their testimony was reliable? By cross examination. By people with the means, motive and opportunity to refute that testimony, if it was erroneous.

F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester:

"The earliest preachers of the gospel know the value of … first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. 'We are witnesses of these things,' was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of His disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.

"And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, 'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you yourselves also know' (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as further corrective."

– F. F. Bruce. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, IL 60515: Inter-Varsity Press, 1964, pp. 33, 44-46.

Accurately stated, Christianity exists because of an actual, historical event: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We know this event happened because of the people who witnessed it.

At the time the books of The Bible were written and circulated, there were people who had the means, motive and opportunity to refute them. One such man was King Herod Agrippa II, who ruled territory north and northeast of the Sea of Galilee and over some cities in Perea.

Of Herod Agrippa II, Encyclopedia Britannica notes that he was born AD 27, and died AD 93, meaning he was alive during the time the New Testament documents were written and circulated throughout the region.

The Britannica notes that Agrippa II was “king of Chalcis in southern Lebanon from AD 50 and tetrarch of Batanaea and Trachonitis in south Syria from AD 53, who unsuccessfully mediated with the rebels in the Jewish Revolt of AD 66–70. He was a great-grandson of Herod I the Great.

“Agrippa II was raised and educated at the imperial court in Rome. Because of his youth at the death of his father, Agrippa I, in 44, the emperor Claudius returned Judaea to the status of a province. The young prince, however, took an interest in the welfare of the Jews and helped secure them an edict of moderation. In 48 he received authority over temple affairs in Jerusalem. Two years later he became king of Chalcis, and in 53 he exchanged this land for Philip the Tetrarch's former holdings. Nero, the new emperor, in 54 added territory near the Sea of Galilee to Agrippa's realm. As his father had been, Agrippa II was an ardent collaborator with Rome and did all in his power to prevent the rupture between Rome and Jewry, but in vain.

“Between 52 and 60, he appointed several high priests and earned the enmity of the conflicting parties. Though he supported the rights of the Jews at Alexandria, who faced trouble from the Hellenized populace, he avoided
politics in Judaea, where the Zealots, a terrorist group, were active. In 60, when St. Paul was arrested, the procurator consulted Agrippa concerning the Apostle's case; the Tetrarch found him innocent.”

According to Luke's account in Acts 26, Paul tells Agrippa, "you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies" (verse 3), recalls Christ's resurrection from the dead as fulfilling Old Testament prophecies (verses 21-22) and tells Agrippa, "The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do." (verses 26-27)

Wow. Pretty heavy statements to use in addressing a king. Had Paul spoken falsely, the book of Acts would have had a different ending (and beginning, for that matter). Instead of refuting Paul, Agrippa says, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?" (verse 28).

Paul's reply (verse 28): "Short time or long -- I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

Agrippa later tells Governor Festus (verse 32): "This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar." Would Agrippa had said that if Paul was lying in his testimony?

This was an eyewitness account from the physician Luke, who recorded these events in the book of Acts. In Acts 12:23, Luke even records that Agrippa's father was consumed by worms because he had blasphemed against God (in A.D. 44, when Agrippa II was 17 years old). Had Luke been in error, King Agrippa had the means, motive, and opportunity to squelch this document as copies circulated throughout the region, or to imprison Luke and Paul for false testimony. Indeed, Agrippa had the means, motive and opportunity to stop the entire New Testiment, written and circulating within his kingdom, within his lifetime. But he did not/could not refute the eyewitness accounts.

I highly recommend the following essay by legal authority Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence, located here:

http://members.surfeu.fi/foragnostics/sgtestimony.htm

[djconklin]

Eyewitness testimony can be suspect for many reasons. The witness may be lying. They may be mistaken. They may have not have witnessed important details and fill in the blanks with their imagination, totally subconciously. There is a lot of research on false memories, where people "remember" events that never happened. They aren't lying. They really think they remember, but the event never happened.

While the above may be theoretically true one must ask what is the probability?

See Bailey, Kenneth E. "Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels," Asia Journal of Theology (Singapore) 5/1 (1991): 34-54 for insights as to how things were done in those days and ages and still were almost two thousand years later in that culture -- not ours.

[apologetics]

I remember reading that Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, was always a Christian, and that the conversion to a Christianity was a ploy to sell his books. I regret that I can't remember the source.

I can only say.....prove it.

However, there are many other atheists-turned-Christians. Two of the more prominent are Frank Morison, author of Who moved the Stone and the most prominent, Josh McDowell, author of The Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Volumes 1 and 2, among many other books. McDowell's books are much more in depth then Strobel's. Why would Strobel need to make up a story to sell books when there were many more apologetics books written before his by authors who never claimed atheists beliefs, but whose books have also sold very well?

But, I'm sure that infedels.org or whatever other atheist website you claim to have found this on is a very reputable source....:ahem:

[Minnesota]

ME: " I remember reading that Lee Strobel, the author of The Case for Christ, was always a Christian, and that the conversion to a Christianity was a ploy to sell his books. I regret that I can't remember the source."


Then why bother repeating such a rumor ?


Because I remember that the piece was pretty convincing. It went into specifics. Rumors are not, by definition, necessarily wrong. But, mere rumor or absolute truth, I think it bears notice.




I can only say.....prove it.

It's not that important. So, even if I could, I really doubt that I'd bother.

[jason]

Because I remember that the piece was pretty convincing. It went into specifics. Rumors are not, by definition, necessarily wrong. But, mere rumor or absolute truth, I think it bears notice.

It's not that important. So, even if I could, I really doubt that I'd bother.So you just offered an unsubstantiated slur against a christian apologist ?

Nice ...

Jason

[beanfarmer]

The Historically Correct Jesus

This month's heresy draws from the Bible a completely new Jesus hitherto unknown. A recent symposium on who Jesus was now, (as opposed to who Jesus was then) has discovered that he no longer is (was) what he was (is), but that what he was has become something else. Furthermore, the was that he is may become other, so that he may be not what he was now but rather he will have been other than he is now and may become, even other has beens. This has become possible via a relatively new scientific discipline that has opened up a whole new avenue for inventive and original theology referred to as "The Historically Correct Jesus".

How can one achieve this theological flexibility within the constraints of a historical investigation? The answer is that you can not, or at least could not, until the recent discovery of a rather bizarre wrinkle in theological reality. All of us have had the experience of finding that things are not always what they seem to be. Though it is usually chalked up to misperception or too much of a party the night before, one theory postulates that at certain times and in very restricted situations things seem to be something else because they truly are, not what they are. Though it had always been assumed that an object could not be itself and yet not itself at the same time and in the same way, 20th century advances in the science of relativism have found that this is not so in matters theological. It has in fact been proven via the recombinant technology of relativistic political correctness, that in fact two logical opposites can be true at the same time and in the same way within the narrow field of theology. The first, and most famous, law discovered with this scientific method was the devilishly simple principle,

"What you believe is true for you and what I believe is true for me."

Of course other attempts were made to use the same principle in other areas. One researcher, after a particularly moving concert, having imbibed a number of psychotrophic agents in order to better appreciate the music, discovered that it was true for her that she could fly, and stepped off of a rather tall building. Physical reality, having absolutely no appreciation for political correctness, didn't care what was true for her and the sidewalk definitely felt that the hard truth for it was that it would not give at all, and the girl was smashed into little bits. It is for this reason that it is now recognized that this wrinkle in the fabric of reality exists only in the realms of religious science.

Further application of these findings by the fore mentioned Jesus historians led to a rather creative use of the concept of control beliefs. A control belief is a premise upon which you base your investigation. It is used to form your argument and to decide which ideas are worth pursuing and which have to be thrown out. The trick is in arriving at your control belief before your investigation has shown you what reality is.

It can be an almost mystical experience at times appearing almost prophetic because the basis on which you proceed seems to always end up being backed up by the conclusions that you come to. If you decide that Jesus was a political leader then you may rule out all of his religious statements as later additions. Such additions, put in at a later date, can not be considered to be a part of the historical Jesus. How do you know that Jesus was a political leader? Because we have just proven that claims that he spoke of other maters were later forgeries. How do we know that they are forgeries? Because since he was really only a political leader he would not have been interested in religious maters so he would not have spoken on them. If that type of argument does not convince someone, just keep repeating the last two lines of it until the shear bloody mindedness of it wears them down. This is not circular logic. It is rather the logical and unavoidable outcome of your presupposition. It is not an unsupported presupposition because your end findings show it to be true. It's like the guy who made a sculpture of an elephant by getting a big rock and cutting out everything that didn't look like an elephant. An example of a control belief used by Jesus historians is the belief that things supernatural, miraculous, or that in other ways would show the hand of God intervening in human affairs, do not exist. This denies the main purpose of the Bible and thereby opens up a plethora of imaginative and original discoveries in historical fact that can then be mined from whatever little bits and pieces that are left that you determine to be authentic history.

Control beliefs are not the only tool available to the Jesus historian. Once it had been determined that reality works in a different way in theology than in mathematics or physical science, other anomalies were sought. Most of these were found in a related discipline, form criticism. Form criticism found that you can eliminate anything that does not come from more than one source. This gets rid of most of the gospel of John which contains much that was left out of the other three gospels. Of course Matthew Mark and Luke contain many similar passages, but any that don't fit what you're planning on Jesus having been can also be dealt with. You can eliminate anything that has slightly different wording in two places. The Lord's Prayer can thus be eliminated as a corrupted text. The same concept can be used in another way to eliminate any passage that occurs in two places without using different words if one of the passages is only partial. You can assume, (brilliantly of course,) part was added, or you can assume, (even more brilliantly,) that the part left out was different and somehow more authentic than the parts you have. Your summation of the deleted part then becomes the authentic material upon which your control belief can be based. Of course there are still a few passages that occur word for word in more than one place, that might give your particular historical perspective problems. They, however, can be ruled out because they were both obviously copied from another unknown source. Though such sources are unknown, we know about them enough to give them names. Single letter names are the most impressive, like, "Q" or "P" or "E". It is best if the amount of unknown sources that you know is kept relatively small so that you can keep track of them and thus not lose track of what it is that you don't know.

Of course, this can leave you with practically nothing upon which you can base your particular historical Jesus. Much however, can yet be mined from what you do not know. Why were these stories made up? It could not have been to make the early chroniclers of Biblical myth popular. Most of them seem to have died for saying it. There must have been some underlying reason for these stories. This reason can be discovered by using the historical psychological approach. An analysis of the dysfunction of the various characters in your history and the psychology of the authors of the sources can be used to discover hidden agendas based on suppressed traumas which can then be part of the historical facts from which your history is constructed. The possibilities of this approach are virtually psychedelic.

All of this could get a bit confusing, and we here at Heresy of the Month would certainly not want that, so let us just walk you through one of the many possible historical realities generated by these methods. We will use the passage about the woman at the well found in John 4 as a stating point. Since this story exists only in the book of John it must have been made up because higher criticism has shown us that truth usually comes in triplicate and must at least have a carbon copy to be valid. (To say that a text is more reliable if more than one copy exists and yet to disqualify other texts because multiple copies infer an earlier source that is unknown is not a contradiction. Rather it is due to the anomalies of reality mentioned above that exist only in the realms of theology.) But why was this story included? The obvious answer is that the opposite must then be true. The editorial committee for the book of John must have wanted to cover up Jesus' racist attitude towards Samaritans. A Freudian slip of the redactors quill has however betrayed what really transpired. Jesus asks the woman for a drink and yet he tells her that he can give her water. The story just doesn't make sense. The water, however, is a genuine element of history. Later on in both verse 40 and 43 the phrase "two days" appears. With a little intuition and if you decided that your control belief was that Jesus was the first of a long line of Jewish comics, it can be seen that what actually transpired was a precursor to a well worn comedic standard. It probably went something like this.

"How many Samaritans does it take to draw a drink of water?"
"Only one but it would take him two days to do it."

Yes, it was a bit lame, yet it's importance lies not in Jesus' primitive attempt at humor but rather in the myriad of light bulb jokes that it has spawned since.

In fact, this bit of critical biblical isogesis, could become the start of a totally new ancient Jesus. Jesus could now have been no longer a political reformer, He could cease to have been a peasant philosopher, and henceforth he was not a Zionist zealot. What he becomes was no longer even a religious teacher. What he taught will not be all doom and judgment. He comes to have had a far lighter side than any people living within a generation of his time would have guessed. Not just lighter, but funny. Yes, what Jesus was has now become funny, so funny that we can now call him, "The Hysterical Jesus".

Once this fact has been discovered it is easy to find a plethora of evidence for it. An example can be seen in the story of the demon possessed man in Mark 5. Our control belief eliminates the demon and the exorcism, but since versions of this story appear in two of the other gospels as well, there must be some real historical basis for it hiding within the text. Since we have already determined that Jesus was a stand up comic, the true history behind it is easy to imagine. This is a typical case of a comic being heckled! This individual heckler was more than one usually ran into. The mention of his ability to break chains and the mention that "none could tame him" in verse 4 are of course embellishments of the fact that bouncers at clubs he frequented were unable to contain his heckling. A fragment of the original heckling can be seen in verse 7 where he shouts in reference to the quality of Jesus routine, "torment me not". Jesus was not one to be easily frazzled however. His response mentioning compassion for the heckler and the phase "go home and tell thy friends" in verse 19 was obviously an early version of the line, "Here's a quarter.... Call someone who cares."

This, of course is just one example of what you can make Jesus to have been. History, at least when it applies to Jesus, can be virtually anything you want it to be. The accuracy of your version of history is verified, or even proven, as long as what you believe is true for you. Just be careful that the ideas your historical Jesus taught are more important than Jesus Himself. This will help avoid any accidental contact with the real person of Jesus which would of course not be in line with any of the heresies that you get here at Heresy of the Month.

Disclaimer:
This paticular heresy is not endorsed by Time Magazine, though they have published some nearly as silly, and not based on little more than what we based it on. As always, neither ''Sackcloth and Ashes'' nor ''Heresy of the Month'' will be responcible for the souls of anyone believing in this heresy nor any other "historical Jesus" that doesn't have him dying for your sins.

[shunyadragon]

This is a long post. I will take parts and respond at this point


The Historically Correct Jesus

This month's heresy draws from the Bible a completely new Jesus hitherto unknown. A recent symposium on who Jesus was now, (as opposed to who Jesus was then) has discovered that he no longer is (was) what he was (is), but that what he was has become something else. Furthermore, the was that he is may become other, so that he may be not what he was now but rather he will have been other than he is now and may become, even other has beens. This has become possible via a relatively new scientific discipline that has opened up a whole new avenue for inventive and original theology referred to as "The Historically Correct Jesus".

Which symposium is this?


How can one achieve this theological flexibility within the constraints of a historical investigation? The answer is that you can not, or at least could not, until the recent discovery of a rather bizarre wrinkle in theological reality. All of us have had the experience of finding that things are not always what they seem to be. Though it is usually chalked up to misperception or too much of a party the night before, one theory postulates that at certain times and in very restricted situations things seem to be something else because they truly are, not what they are. Though it had always been assumed that an object could not be itself and yet not itself at the same time and in the same way, 20th century advances in the science of relativism have found that this is not so in matters theological. It has in fact been proven via the recombinant technology of relativistic political correctness, that in fact two logical opposites can be true at the same time and in the same way within the narrow field of theology. The first, and most famous, law discovered with this scientific method was the devilishly simple principle,

"What you believe is true for you and what I believe is true for me."

This devilishly simply principle is more like a bag of logic worms. There is nothing here based on a 'scientific method,' nor a 'historical method.'



Further application of these findings by the fore mentioned Jesus historians led to a rather creative use of the concept of control beliefs. A control belief is a premise upon which you base your investigation. It is used to form your argument and to decide which ideas are worth pursuing and which have to be thrown out. The trick is in arriving at your control belief before your investigation has shown you what reality is.

I call the trick 'loading the dice.' This is the most common practice among traditional theologians, assume beliefs, doctrines and dogmas and then present your argument.


It can be an almost mystical experience at times appearing almost prophetic because the basis on which you proceed seems to always end up being backed up by the conclusions that you come to. If you decide that Jesus was a political leader then you may rule out all of his religious statements as later additions. Such additions, put in at a later date, can not be considered to be a part of the historical Jesus. How do you know that Jesus was a political leader? Because we have just proven that claims that he spoke of other maters were later forgeries. How do we know that they are forgeries? Because since he was really only a political leader he would not have been interested in religious maters so he would not have spoken on them. If that type of argument does not convince someone, just keep repeating the last two lines of it until the shear bloody mindedness of it wears them down. This is not circular logic. It is rather the logical and unavoidable outcome of your presupposition. It is not an unsupported presupposition because your end findings show it to be true. It's like the guy who made a sculpture of an elephant by getting a big rock and cutting out everything that didn't look like an elephant. An example of a control belief used by Jesus historians is the belief that things supernatural, miraculous, or that in other ways would show the hand of God intervening in human affairs, do not exist. This denies the main purpose of the Bible and thereby opens up a plethora of imaginative and original discoveries in historical fact that can then be mined from whatever little bits and pieces that are left that you determine to be authentic history.

All these questions remain definitively unanswered on both sides of the fence, and from the less biased perspective, 'How do you know?' could just as well to the believers in the scripture, doctrine, dogma and traditional Christian history of Jesus. The actual evidence that we have available for the life of Jesus leaves these questions open. In part this is apparent in the many divisions within Christianity that each claim they know, and disagree to the point of schism.

Doctrine and Dogma are 'control beliefs' for the Traditional Theist. Control beliefs should be limited for secular historians, but nonetheless some have underlying control beliefs in the work.



Of course, this can leave you with practically nothing upon which you can base your particular historical Jesus. Much however, can yet be mined from what you do not know. Why were these stories made up? It could not have been to make the early chroniclers of Biblical myth popular.

This cannot be discounted by hand waving. It was a common practice in many ancient cultures.


Most of them seem to have died for saying it.

True, but this is equally true of many diverse belief systems in history.


There must have been some underlying reason for these stories.

'Must be' is the achille's heal of doctrinal and dogmatic assumptions.


All of this could get a bit confusing, and we here at Heresy of the Month would certainly not want that, so let us just walk you through one of the many possible historical realities generated by these methods. We will use the passage about the woman at the well found in John 4 as a stating point. Since this story exists only in the book of John it must have been made up because higher criticism has shown us that truth usually comes in triplicate and must at least have a carbon copy to be valid. (To say that a text is more reliable if more than one copy exists and yet to disqualify other texts because multiple copies infer an earlier source that is unknown is not a contradiction. Rather it is due to the anomalies of reality mentioned above that exist only in the realms of theology.) But why was this story included? The obvious answer is that the opposite must then be true. The editorial committee for the book of John must have wanted to cover up Jesus' racist attitude towards Samaritans. A Freudian slip of the redactors quill has however betrayed what really transpired. Jesus asks the woman for a drink and yet he tells her that he can give her water. The story just doesn't make sense. The water, however, is a genuine element of history. Later on in both verse 40 and 43 the phrase "two days" appears. With a little intuition and if you decided that your control belief was that Jesus was the first of a long line of Jewish comics, it can be seen that what actually transpired was a precursor to a well worn comedic standard. It probably went something like this.

"How many Samaritans does it take to draw a drink of water?"
"Only one but it would take him two days to do it."

This sarcastic view of 'higher criticism does not hold water. By the above you could assume they were using bowls with holes in the them to draw the water. This not a real nor valid description. One story, particularly a parable, in only one source does not in itself determine whether the story is true.


Yes, it was a bit lame, yet it's importance lies not in Jesus' primitive attempt at humor but rather in the myriad of light bulb jokes that it has spawned since.

Light bulb jokes are not relevant.


In fact, this bit of critical biblical isogesis, could become the start of a totally new ancient Jesus. Jesus could now have been no longer a political reformer, He could cease to have been a peasant philosopher, and henceforth he was not a Zionist zealot. What he becomes was no longer even a religious teacher. What he taught will not be all doom and judgment. He comes to have had a far lighter side than any people living within a generation of his time would have guessed. Not just lighter, but funny. Yes, what Jesus was has now become funny, so funny that we can now call him, "The Hysterical Jesus".

Totally irrelevant to question of 'Who was the historical Jesus?' The sarcasm needle just pegged and broke.


Once this fact has been discovered it is easy to find a plethora of evidence for it. An example can be seen in the story of the demon possessed man in Mark 5. Our control belief eliminates the demon and the exorcism, but since versions of this story appear in two of the other gospels as well, there must be some real historical basis for it hiding within the text.

There actually is not a plethora of evidence available.

No, appearing in more than one gospel only means it appears in more than on gospel, and not whether the story is reliable, There is evidence that the gospels evolved and later gospels used earlier gospels.



Since we have already determined that Jesus was a stand up comic, the true history behind it is easy to imagine. This is a typical case of a comic being heckled! This individual heckler was more than one usually ran into. The mention of his ability to break chains and the mention that "none could tame him" in verse 4 are of course embellishments of the fact that bouncers at clubs he frequented were unable to contain his heckling. A fragment of the original heckling can be seen in verse 7 where he shouts in reference to the quality of Jesus routine, "torment me not". Jesus was not one to be easily frazzled however. His response mentioning compassion for the heckler and the phase "go home and tell thy friends" in verse 19 was obviously an early version of the line, "Here's a quarter.... Call someone who cares."

Again meaningless/


This, of course is just one example of what you can make Jesus to have been. History, at least when it applies to Jesus, can be virtually anything you want it to be.

If you wish to base your conclusions on the evidence, no, Jesus cannot be anything you want Jesus to be. There are only certain options genuinely available in reality.


The accuracy of your version of history is verified, or even proven, as long as what you believe is true for you.

This may be true for layman conjecture and speculation, but not from the academic historical perspective. Like scientist, historians do not 'prove' things.


Disclaimer:
This paticular heresy is not endorsed by Time Magazine, though they have published some nearly as silly, and not based on little more than what we based it on. As always, neither ''Sackcloth and Ashes'' nor ''Heresy of the Month'' will be responcible for the souls of anyone believing in this heresy nor any other "historical Jesus" that doesn't have him dying for your sins.

The above would be based on the assumptions of Traditional Christian doctrines, dogma, accuracy of the scripture, which from a less biased academic historical perspective may of may not be true like other religious beliefs of the world based on their scripture, doctrine and dogma.

[beanfarmer]

Shunyadragon, of course it was cut and pasted. I wrote it a long time ago in a galexcy far far away. It is satire. Meant to show how silly the time magazine articles are on the historical Jesus, that come out every easter.

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon, of course it was cut and pasted. I wrote it a long time ago in a galexcy far far away. It is satire. Meant to show how silly the time magazine articles are on the historical Jesus, that come out every easter.

Interesting as satire, will the real beanfarmer step forward. Farmer to farmer.