[Winstonm]

Quote

there are *many* historical references to Jesus, winston... i don't have time but i could easily show more... these quotes are from this website, there are many more sites and quotes

Yes, Jimmy, I agree that there are numerous references to Jesus in antiguities - all written after his death by those who were not alive at the same time and thus could not have been eyewitnesses - all history is thus of a hearsay nature.

This is the Argument From Silence. It is not particularly effective - at best all it can lead to is agnosticism and doubt. It is not proof of anything, but it is an oddity.

An example of this argument:

Quote

There is a huge gap at the heart of the Jesus story. There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive. There is plenty of evidence that people believed that there was a man named Jesus who was killed, but none that he was alive. By that I mean nothing exists from the time of the supposed life of Jesus. No letters exist that mention Jesus the preacher or miracle worker. No Christian letters or diaries, no Jewish ones, no Greek ones, no Roman ones. Nobody wrote about a single aspect of his life while he was living it. Just think for a moment about what the man was supposed to have done. He was supposed to have had meetings with thousands of people. He was supposed to have cured people, even raised a man from the dead. He was supposed to have entered the city of Jerusalem at the head of a triumphal procession and yet nobody wrote anything about it at the time. Not a book, not a diary, not a graffito, not even a sale or return catering order for loaves and fishes. Isn't that just a little hard to believe?

Now that does not prove anything. But it does raise sincere questions.

Similarly, the quotes you use are all second-hand observations - the are hearsay evidence of the exitence of Jesus. Of course they hold some importance as historical documents - but they do not constitute a proof of exitence anymore than the Argument From Silence disproves an existence.

The book review was interesting because it adopted a new argument for this controversy - the Argument of Best Explanation.

Again, I found it of interest as I was not even aware of the controversy over the historical reality of Jesus.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 5 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

there are *many* historical references to Jesus, winston... i don't have time but i could easily show more... these quotes are from this website, there are many more sites and quotes

There is a reason that Jimmy was able to find a web site addressing this issue: People have been debating this topic for a 1,000 years. More specifically the veracity of these specific examples is very open to debate.

I recommend anyone seriously interested in the topic look over

http://en.wikipedia....istorical_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia....ricity_of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jesus_Myth
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jes..._history.htm#13

[NickRW]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

Quote

There is a huge gap at the heart of the Jesus story. There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive. There is plenty of evidence that people believed that there was a man named Jesus who was killed, but none that he was alive. By that I mean nothing exists from the time of the supposed life of Jesus. No letters exist that mention Jesus the preacher or miracle worker. No Christian letters or diaries, no Jewish ones, no Greek ones, no Roman ones. Nobody wrote about a single aspect of his life while he was living it. Just think for a moment about what the man was supposed to have done. He was supposed to have had meetings with thousands of people. He was supposed to have cured people, even raised a man from the dead. He was supposed to have entered the city of Jerusalem at the head of a triumphal procession and yet nobody wrote anything about it at the time. Not a book, not a diary, not a graffito, not even a sale or return catering order for loaves and fishes. Isn't that just a little hard to believe?

Now that does not prove anything. But it does raise sincere questions.

Well it maybe does raise sincere questions. But I am not sure that it particularly raises the question of whether the man actually existed or not. Some of the "things he was supposed to have done" could well have been exaggerations added by this followers in later years - true - but - even if that was the case, does it really give credence to the notion that he was never there at all. It could, theoretically, be the case that he was never there, but I tend to think this is reading more into a non-christian's incredulity than is necessary. Occam's Razor comes to mind.

Nick

[Winstonm]

Quote

Well it maybe does raise sincere questions. But I am not sure that it particularly raises the question of whether the man actually existed or not

Again, Nick, this is considered to be the "Argument From Silence", and at best all it can lead to is agnisticism - a lack of proof. It is not meant to be a disproof, and as the author of the review, Carrier, noted, he himself was a believer in the historical until reading Doherty's "Argument of Best Explanation" in the book.

I am not interested in advocating one position over another - I didn't even know this was a debate until recently; however, having learned of the debate I am more interested in a pursuasive argument than in defending a position.

[Winstonm]

Trying to catch up with some earlier observations, here.

Quote

the bible says they were first called 'christians' in the city of antioch... i think there's evidence that a movement started, i think there's evidence that those involved in this movement were known by a certain name...

'Christ' means 'Messiah'... christians were followers of Christ, and the existence of this Christ they spoke of has at least as much historical evidence as many persons in antiquity the existence of whom i'm sure you don't doubt

I claim no specific knowledge, but look to Richard's posted websites for guidance and get this from the last one:
(emphasis added)

Quote

....we know of at least one early Christian bishop who seems to have never even heard of Jesus Christ, Teophilus of Antioch who lived from approximately 115 to 185.....his works clearly show that his theology was very much Christian in nature, yet he never mentioned Jesus Christ, and he explained Christianity in a way that has nothing to do with any specific leader. Theophilus stated that God is invisible and known by his works, such as the ordering of the seasons and things of this nature. Theophilus defended the Christian doctrine of resurrection and life after death by again referring to the seasons and the growth of seeds and things like this. How could an early Christian defend the doctrine of resurrection without mentioning Jesus Christ, unless he had indeed never heard of him or the story of his death and resurrection? Theophilus went on to state that the reason that Christians were called Christians was because they anointed themselves with oil, saying nothing about any supposed "Christ" figure.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It seems to me that Jesus was a real person, after all there are many independent sources, esp. Roman ones, that refer to him.

Gerben, I certainly do not think yours an unreasonable belief; however, I also am now reasobably convinced that there is certainly reason to question that assumption.
After all, up until Catholicism there were numerous "types" of Chritianity and not all believed in a literal Jesus, such as the different groups listed together as gnostics.

I do not think it silly to believe, but I equally believe it is right to question.

[pigpenz]

the main historian at that time was some named Josephus (spelling not sure) but in his recocrds there was never any mention of Jesus.

Having grown up a catholic
1. The council of Lycea officially names Jesus , God in about 400AD...people couldnt deal with him being son of god and god. Arian heresy
2. Jesus was a jew. Supposedly a rabbi, IMHO he never intended to start a religion. Paul was the main person for recruiting people into christianity which at the beginning was a subsect of judaism. People like it cause as adults they didnt need to be circumsribed.

books:
When Jesus became God
The passover plot

[Winstonm]

Quote

1. The council of Lycea officially names Jesus , God in about 400AD...

If I understand the history correctly, there were many different "christian" sects who held different beliefs until Constantine (?) made a specific sect the official Roman religion (hence outlawing any others and quashing those whose beliefs were different than the official version - and thus also eliminating any other manuscripts that differed from the "official" version.)

[mike777]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/mi...=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jul 5 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/mi...=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mike, very interesting and a good find. While reading it, though, I had the thought that all this really would show is that the myth of resurrection in 3 days had been part of Jewish mythology, so to have this included in the Jesus story would make as strong a case for a Jesus myth as it would for a Jesus reality.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 08:55 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 5 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/mi...=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mike, very interesting and a good find. While reading it, though, I had the thought that all this really would show is that the myth of resurrection in 3 days had been part of Jewish mythology, so to have this included in the Jesus story would make as strong a case for a Jesus myth as it would for a Jesus reality.

Winston are you suggesting that there is some connection between the story of Jesus and the Jewish religious history and teachings?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jul 5 2008, 09:06 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 5 2008, 08:55 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 5 2008, 08:44 PM, said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/mi...=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mike, very interesting and a good find. While reading it, though, I had the thought that all this really would show is that the myth of resurrection in 3 days had been part of Jewish mythology, so to have this included in the Jesus story would make as strong a case for a Jesus myth as it would for a Jesus reality.

Winston are you suggesting that there is some connection between the story of Jesus and the Jewish religious history and teachings?

I am commenting on the NYT story, Mike, in that IF the tablet found does indeed show that a resurrection story had been part of Jewish mythology then it would make as much sense for it to be incorporated in Christianity whether Jesus was real or a myth.


Pagans had resurrection stories - see the pagan gods Inanna and Zalmoxis for resurrection themes. In fact, Inanna was trapped in the "Netherworld" as a corpse for 3 days.

[Al_U_Card]

Seems to me that the early "christian" (as in illuminated or touched by god's light) theosophy included reincarnation more than resurrection. It was one of the main tenets that Constantine got rid of during the first reformation...

Tell the same story, over and over, and punish disbelief and reward belief....sounds like your classic mind control/brainwashing techniques....Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack...right....right...right?

[kenberg]

I thas been suggested that some posters are incapable of understanding the review. That certainly applies to me.

Here is the beginning of the reviews sectin on The Sublunar Incarnation Theory

Central to Doherty's thesis is his reinterpretation of the nature of the Incarnation as held by the earliest Christians (including Paul and some other epistle authors), such as by rereading the strange yet oft-repeated reference to kata sarka, "according to the flesh" (as usually translated). Doherty does confuse readers, I think, when he denies the Incarnation here and there, equating that word with the earthly sojourn. However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did undergo incarnation--just not on earth. So though you might get the opposite impression from Doherty 's rhetoric (and he needs to reword several passages to remove the confusion), his theory is entirely compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in the sublunar sphere of heaven, since, as Doherty explains several times, he had to in order to die and fulfill the law (only flesh can die, and be subject to the law, and blood was necessary for atonement).

To start with the obvious, what is the sublunar sphere of heaven?
Why was blood necessary for atonement?
What law was he fulfilling?
Is the reviewer saying (he appears to be) saying) that Doherty is saying that there actually was a flesh and blood Jesus but he lived in the sublunar sphere of heaven rather than on earth? Adter all, the reviewer asserts: "However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did undergo incarnation--just not on earth."
Doherty used standard historical methods for deciding whether Jesus existed on earth or in the sublunar sphere of heaven?

Every once in a while I get stuck talking with an astrology freak. They sound just like this.


No, I cannot understand the review. I confess, I cannot.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Jul 5 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

I thas been suggested that some posters are incapable of understanding the review. That certainly applies to me.

Here is the beginning of the reviews sectin on The  Sublunar Incarnation Theory

Central to Doherty's thesis is his reinterpretation of the nature of the Incarnation as held by the earliest Christians (including Paul and some other epistle authors), such as by rereading the strange yet oft-repeated reference to kata sarka, "according to the flesh" (as usually translated). Doherty does confuse readers, I think, when he  denies the Incarnation here and there, equating that word with the earthly sojourn. However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did undergo incarnation--just not on earth. So though you might get the opposite impression from Doherty 's rhetoric (and he needs to reword several passages to remove the confusion), his theory is entirely compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in the sublunar sphere of heaven, since, as Doherty explains several times, he had to in order to die and fulfill the law (only flesh can die, and be subject to the law, and blood was necessary for atonement).

To start with the obvious, what is the sublunar sphere of heaven?
Why was blood necessary for atonement?
What law was he fulfilling?
Is the reviewer saying (he appears to be) saying) that Doherty is saying that  there actually was a flesh and blood Jesus but he lived in the sublunar sphere of heaven rather than on earth? Adter all, the reviewer asserts: "However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did undergo incarnation--just not on earth."
Doherty used standard historical methods for deciding whether Jesus existed on earth or in the sublunar sphere of heaven?

Every once in a while I get stuck talking with an astrology freak. They sound just like this.


No, I cannot understand the review. I confess, I cannot.

Maybe this from Carrier will help, Ken: (emphasis added)

Quote

As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions and inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics and power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views.

The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant.

Or in other words, Jesus was not a historic necessity according to Doherty's thesis that Christianity began as mysticism (myth, as it was also known).

[luke warm]

well i guess we're left with which authorities to believe... everybody has to make a choice on their own

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jul 5 2008, 09:52 PM, said:

well i guess we're left with which authorities to believe... everybody has to make a choice on their own

Jimmy, that was the thrust of the thread all along - not a bashing of beliefs but (to me, at least) an enlightenment on the fact that there is a debate at all, and the arguments used to frame the debate, i.e., the Argument From Silence and the Argument for Best Explanation.

The only difference is that I don't see it so much as a choice but as an acceptance of the better argument.

[kenberg]

Winston,

I am, as you know, very skeptical of many religious claims. But the attitude that makes me skeptical of religious claims also leads me to regard the posted review as nonsense. I find it incomprehensible. While I am always willing to at least entertain the possibility that this is due to my own limitations, I don't think this is the case here. I once read some Kant. Very difficult, but with effort I could understand. Here, I seriously doubt things would become clearer if I worked harder at the text. There seems to be nothing to build on.

But tell me. You read this review and it all makes sense to you? People differ.

Ken

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Jul 6 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

Winston,

I am, as you know, very skeptical of many religious claims. But the attitude that makes me skeptical of religious claims also leads me to regard the posted review as nonsense. I find it incomprehensible. While I am always willing to at least entertain the possibility that this is due to my own limitations, I don't think this is the case here. I once read some Kant. Very difficult, but with effort I could understand. Here, I seriously doubt things would become clearer if I worked harder at the text. There seems to be nothing to build on.

But tell me. You read this review and it all makes sense to you? People differ.

Ken

Only in a general sense.

[NickRW]

I still don't see the point of this really.

I can prove to you who my grandparents were because I can get birth certs and so on. And I can also do this for my great grandparents. But for the generation before and beyond all I can do is consult sketchy church records and say, in all probability, such and such a record was indicative of the previous generation's marriage because the name seems in the right sort of place at the right sort of time. But it isn't proof and again, in all probability, my genealogy contains one or more errors of assumption somewhere. But, unless space aliens artificially inseminated one of my great great grandmothers or something weird like that, I definitely know that the generation did actually exist.

But does any of that matter anyway. I exist now.

So there isn't proof that Jesus existed. Uh. What is anyone going to do about it. Does it really matter. Quite possibly, indeed perhaps quite likely, he did - but nobody can prove it. End of argument. There is no proof. That is all anyone can usefully say.