The point is that the Resurrection [. . . ] is not mentioned in that Gospel [. . . therefore] A likelier interpretation is that Mark overlooked the Resurrection sightings because they were not historical.
is an allegory for death and resurrection. Notice he is stripped naked of a linen cloak at the arrest; and appears after the resurrection in a radiant white robe.[115] These were well known literary tropes (the body of flesh as linen garment; the resurrection body as donning a glorious white robe). I analyze this in my chapter on the Empty Tomb legend in The Empty Tomb.[116] The man’s anonymity allows him to stand in for everyone, including Mark’s readers/hearers.[113]
But how any "Resurrection Discrepancy" in the original Markan narrative "serves as evidence that the Crucifixion itself was historic", is speculative at best and is presupposing a HJ Crucifixion at worst.
I must be articulating my reasoning VERY badly, because the "rebuttals" offered have ZERO to do with any point I'm making.
In the 4th century Bible — the oldest copy of that document in existence — Mark's Gospel had no mention of any post-Crucifixion sightings. (And the briefly implied Resurrection itself might also look like an earlier addition.) The point is that the Resurrection — absolutely essential to most Jesus "mythology" — is not mentioned in that Gospel, three* centuries after the death of Jesus. That's a long time for the myth-makers not to get their myths consistent. A likelier interpretation is that Mark overlooked the Resurrection sightings because they were not historical.
* - " Surely you're not focused on whether the "Markan LE" was composed in the 3rd, rather than 4th century??"
"That is correct."
Mention of the Pool of Bethesda was in response to another Infidel's question. But you missed the whole point of my comment — "vividness" has nothing to do with it.
I noted (though without thoroughly indentifying the dots to be connected, I guess) that the Pool might have fallen into disuse by 44 AD and, in any event, seems to have soon disappeared from memory. If John claims that the Pool of Bethesda was where Jesus healed an invalid, the point is that "John" or his informant was familiar with pre-44 Jerusalem. (And the Pool as viewed after 19th-century digging is compatible with its implied use in Jesus' lifetime.)
If you want a Markian writer who would have been writing on some amalgamation of Jesus myths, if written significantly after 130AD, one of which was in fact a Yeshu in the 13's that was recorded in Rabbinical lore from 3rd or 4th century BC? if I recall one of @lpetrich's contributions to the discussion properly.
I wouldn't doubt that by that point, perhaps some time in 150-250, there were a few Jesus cults all to different Jesuses and it would fit nicely with a desire to make, and accept, some "gospel" on the truth of who he was when "who he was" was in all truth not any one person...
So it's again fertile ground someone to come through, stitch together all the myths with as much historical research as could be done, and make a "gospel" on the matter.
1. Mark's Gospel as presented in the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus barely mentions the Resurrection. Yes, two Marys and Salome saw a young man clothed in white but this was the briefest possible mention of the Resurrection — hardly what one would expect if the proofs (sightings) of the resurrected man were accepted as true, or important. Moreover, just as the final 12 verses were added to Mark in the 3rd or 4th century, so the scant mention of the man clothed in white could have been added in the 2nd or 3rd century. Thus the original Mark contains either almost no mention of the Resurrection, or no mention whatsoever.
2. I've never understood the idea that God sacrificed his only Son, who is now sitting at God's right hand. If the Son were "sacrificed" shouldn't he spend eternity in some purgatory so his Father could grieve? But this idea is key to Christian belief: Recall the words of St. Paul the Evangelist: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
3. Now, let us consider three possible outcomes of a Jesus, whether historic or mythical.
A. He could be crucified and resurrected. According to Paul, this is the only case where "Christianity" should even be a religion.
B. He could have never been crucified at all. Perhaps he was hidden away somewhere like Merlin or Islam's 12th Holy Imam. Or perhaps he lived a long happy life, walking with Jeohovah. Or perhaps he died of cardiac arrest in the arms of Mary the Harlot. This is a broad catch-all category.
C. He could be crucified but not resurrected. Let's call this Mark's putative position.
We will get back to these three cases in a moment.
Let me thank you for reading this far. The "rebuttals" I'm getting make it appear that I'm not clarifying my points. It seems I have no recourse but to err in the opposite direction.
To summarize: There are three possible outcomes for Jesus (or any mortal). He can be crucified and resurrected (Paul's Christianity), crucified only (Mark's putative narrative) or not crucified at all (as is the case with over 99.9% of us).
Now, Part II. Let us review some religions along with the fates of their principals.
In Category A, we have Paul's Christianity. Most of us here accept that this was fictionalized. There are other fictional heroes who, though not crucified, were resurrected. In Hinduism, Vishnu reappears as many different Avatars. In Jainism Swarnabahu reappears as Parsvanath. Ancient Egyptians and ancient Phoenicians had some resurrected Gods. And who can keep track of all the Resurrections in Greek and Roman mythology?
In Category B we have a number of great Prophets. Buddha famously lived to a ripe old age and left never to come back. He didn't need to: he'd attained Nirvana. Among the Jews we have Noah, Moses, Jacob, David the Philanderer, et.c. They all lived to old age. None of them ever came back. The death of Mohammed (pbuh) may be unclear. I like to think he died in Aisha's arms — it's the romantic in me — but he was never resurrected. And I am unaware of any confirmed sightings of the Twelfth Imam.
Finally, what about Category C? A religious founder who was crucified but not resurrected. We have Jesus in Mark's putative narrative of course, but anyone else? Jim Jones, I guess, though he died from poisoned Flavor-Aid rather than on a cross. Spartacus wasn't resurrected and may or may not have been crucified. (With thousands of his followers allegedly shouting "I am Spartacus" the Romans couldn't be sure.) Joseph Smith was murdered by gunfire but not resurrected. (As with Jesus, Smith's last words were "O Lord O God.")
Pop Quiz to see if you're paying attention: Besides dying in violence, What do Jim Jones, Spartacus and Joseph Smith all have in common?
They were all historic persons.
So. Mark apparently helped found a religion with a "Messiah" who was crucified but not resurrected. This is unusual. (Though not unprecedented if we consider Smith's death by gun-fire to be the American version of crucifixion.) What might we deduce from that peculiar status of Mark's Messiah?
No. Try to work out the answer yourself before you peek.
Mark wrote about a man who died in a way no "Messiah" would die because ...
... it was the actual historic fact.
Now, armed with this new understanding, go back and ponder this exchange:
But how any "Resurrection Discrepancy" in the original Markan narrative "serves as evidence that the Crucifixion itself was historic", is speculative at best and is presupposing a HJ Crucifixion at worst.
What sort of archaeological evidence do you imagine might exist? A wooden cross bearing the inscription quoted in John 19:19? Do you think a site where 4000 people feasted on fish and bread 2000 years ago could show that secret today? Recall that Jesus' followers were mostly illiterate, could not afford parchment, and any papyrus documents they might have created disintegrated long ago.
There IS some archaeological confirmation. John 5:2 describes the Pool of Bethesda where some lame people bathed hoping to be healed. My understanding is that this Pool was built by Romans during the 1st century BC and dedicated to "heathen" Gods. Herod Agrippa, who ruled Judaea from 41 to 44 AD, built an outer wall in Jerusalem, which we now know would have contained the Pool, possibly rendering its (heathen-dedicated) use sacrilegious to Jews. In any event, the Pool of Bethesda disappears from history. Surely it would have been revered by Christians as a physical bathing-place they could look at and recall that it was there that Jesus allegedly cured a man who had been lame for 38 years. But no: It was just a name in a Gospel.
Of course, the 2nd-century myth-makers would have been happy to associate real places with their fictional Messiah. But this was a Pool which had been abandoned and forgotten when the myth-makers were doing their alleged myth-making.
Finally, one old complaint of the mythicists was that the town of Nazareth didn't even exist in the 1st century. But archaeologists found the town where expected: those digs were in the 20th century if I recall correctly.
Records of the census being taken, for example? Records of Jesus being crucified. The Bible says that when Jesus died there were earthquakes and also the bodies of dead saints being reanimated. Any record of these events? They were (presumably) noteworthy, and the Romans were fairly decent record keepers...
That the Romans took censuses, including the Census of Quirinius specifically, is not in dispute. However most scholars agree that the man writing as Luke wove that census into a fictional account.
As for written records of Jesus, let me first ask YOU two questions:
(I) Which of the following is more in accord with your expectation:
A. Jesus the Christ was the Light of Light, God of Gods and Very God of Very God. Mentions of him in clay tablets, parchment or whatever papyri have survived should outnumber by at least an order of magnitude those of a random Roman Governor named Pilate.
B. A lottery result is as likely to be '352' as '666'. Similarly, Jesus and Pilate were both men. We'd expect mentions of them to be about equal in number.
C. Pilate was for a time the most powerful man in Judaea. Jesus was a lower-class peasant from Galilee. Maybe some people got drunk and thought he changed water into wine, but when they begged their richer friends for a scrap of papyrus on which to write that story, they were laughed at. Of course there is much more documentation for Pilate than for Jesus.
(II) How much archaeological evidence is there that Pontius Pilate existed?
What sort of archaeological evidence do you imagine might exist? A wooden cross bearing the inscription quoted in John 19:19? Do you think a site where 4000 people feasted on fish and bread 2000 years ago could show that secret today? Recall that Jesus' followers were mostly illiterate, could not afford parchment, and any papyrus documents they might have created disintegrated long ago.
There IS some archaeological confirmation. John 5:2 describes the Pool of Bethesda where some lame people bathed hoping to be healed. My understanding is that this Pool was built by Romans during the 1st century BC and dedicated to "heathen" Gods. Herod Agrippa, who ruled Judaea from 41 to 44 AD, built an outer wall in Jerusalem, which we now know would have contained the Pool, possibly rendering its (heathen-dedicated) use sacrilegious to Jews. In any event, the Pool of Bethesda disappears from history. Surely it would have been revered by Christians as a physical bathing-place they could look at and recall that it was there that Jesus allegedly cured a man who had been lame for 38 years. But no: It was just a name in a Gospel.
Of course, the 2nd-century myth-makers would have been happy to associate real places with their fictional Messiah. But this was a Pool which had been abandoned and forgotten when the myth-makers were doing their alleged myth-making.
Finally, one old complaint of the mythicists was that the town of Nazareth didn't even exist in the 1st century. But archaeologists found the town where expected: those digs were in the 20th century if I recall correctly.
Records of the census being taken, for example? Records of Jesus being crucified. The Bible says that when Jesus died there were earthquakes and also the bodies of dead saints being reanimated. Any record of these events? They were (presumably) noteworthy, and the Romans were fairly decent record keepers...
THere is a record of the census taken.. in 6 C.E. However, since the other one had it happening when Herod the King was massacre the innocents (only found in Matthew, and no place else), that makes a contradiction in the bible, since Herod the King died 9 years before the census.
What sort of archaeological evidence do you imagine might exist? A wooden cross bearing the inscription quoted in John 19:19? Do you think a site where 4000 people feasted on fish and bread 2000 years ago could show that secret today? Recall that Jesus' followers were mostly illiterate, could not afford parchment, and any papyrus documents they might have created disintegrated long ago.
There IS some archaeological confirmation. John 5:2 describes the Pool of Bethesda where some lame people bathed hoping to be healed. My understanding is that this Pool was built by Romans during the 1st century BC and dedicated to "heathen" Gods. Herod Agrippa, who ruled Judaea from 41 to 44 AD, built an outer wall in Jerusalem, which we now know would have contained the Pool, possibly rendering its (heathen-dedicated) use sacrilegious to Jews. In any event, the Pool of Bethesda disappears from history. Surely it would have been revered by Christians as a physical bathing-place they could look at and recall that it was there that Jesus allegedly cured a man who had been lame for 38 years. But no: It was just a name in a Gospel.
Of course, the 2nd-century myth-makers would have been happy to associate real places with their fictional Messiah. But this was a Pool which had been abandoned and forgotten when the myth-makers were doing their alleged myth-making.
Finally, one old complaint of the mythicists was that the town of Nazareth didn't even exist in the 1st century. But archaeologists found the town where expected: those digs were in the 20th century if I recall correctly.
Records of the census being taken, for example? Records of Jesus being crucified. The Bible says that when Jesus died there were earthquakes and also the bodies of dead saints being reanimated. Any record of these events? They were (presumably) noteworthy, and the Romans were fairly decent record keepers...
That the Romans took censuses, including the Census of Quirinius specifically, is not in dispute. However most scholars agree that the man writing as Luke wove that census into a fictional account.
As for written records of Jesus, let me first ask YOU two questions:
(I) Which of the following is more in accord with your expectation:
A. Jesus the Christ was the Light of Light, God of Gods and Very God of Very God. Mentions of him in clay tablets, parchment or whatever papyri have survived should outnumber by at least an order of magnitude those of a random Roman Governor named Pilate.
B. A lottery result is as likely to be '352' as '666'. Similarly, Jesus and Pilate were both men. We'd expect mentions of them to be about equal in number.
C. Pilate was for a time the most powerful man in Judaea. Jesus was a lower-class peasant from Galilee. Maybe some people got drunk and thought he changed water into wine, but when they begged their richer friends for a scrap of papyrus on which to write that story, they were laughed at. Of course there is much more documentation for Pilate than for Jesus.
(II) How much archaeological evidence is there that Pontius Pilate existed?
Both Philo of Alexander and Jospehus wrote about Pilate. We found a stone that showed a street was named after him, and a ring inscribed with his name.
As for written records of Jesus, let me first ask YOU two questions:
(I) Which of the following is more in accord with your expectation:
A. Jesus the Christ was the Light of Light, God of Gods and Very God of Very God. Mentions of him in clay tablets, parchment or whatever papyri have survived should outnumber by at least an order of magnitude those of a random Roman Governor named Pilate.
B. A lottery result is as likely to be '352' as '666'. Similarly, Jesus and Pilate were both men. We'd expect mentions of them to be about equal in number.
C. Pilate was for a time the most powerful man in Judaea. Jesus was a lower-class peasant from Galilee. Maybe some people got drunk and thought he changed water into wine, but when they begged their richer friends for a scrap of papyrus on which to write that story, they were laughed at. Of course there is much more documentation for Pilate than for Jesus.
(II) How much archaeological evidence is there that Pontius Pilate existed?
Both Philo of Alexander and Jospehus wrote about Pilate. We found a stone that showed a street was named after him, and a ring inscribed with his name.
OK. Four pieces of evidence. (Three if we discount Josephus whose writings were allegedly interpolated by the myth-makers
with Christian references.) For the sake of argument, let's call the evidence for Jesus Zero. Three versus Zero. Hmmm.
Now answer question (I). Given the three (3) evidences for Pilate, the most powerful man in Judaea in his day, how much evidence should we expect a priori for the Nazarene peasant named Jesus? Thousands of inscriptions (and tape recordings?), I suppose, since he walked on water, wakened the dead and was, after all, Very God of Very God and Maker of all Things?
That the Romans took censuses, including the Census of Quirinius specifically, is not in dispute. However most scholars agree that the man writing as Luke wove that census into a fictional account.
However, if I recall correctly, the census by Quirinus took place in the year 6CE, while Matthew 2:1 makes it clear that Herod was the king at the time. However, Herod had died in 6BCE, about ten years previously.
As for written records of Jesus, let me first ask YOU two questions:
(I) Which of the following is more in accord with your expectation:
A. Jesus the Christ was the Light of Light, God of Gods and Very God of Very God. Mentions of him in clay tablets, parchment or whatever papyri have survived should outnumber by at least an order of magnitude those of a random Roman Governor named Pilate.
B. A lottery result is as likely to be '352' as '666'. Similarly, Jesus and Pilate were both men. We'd expect mentions of them to be about equal in number.
C. Pilate was for a time the most powerful man in Judaea. Jesus was a lower-class peasant from Galilee. Maybe some people got drunk and thought he changed water into wine, but when they begged their richer friends for a scrap of papyrus on which to write that story, they were laughed at. Of course there is much more documentation for Pilate than for Jesus.
I think that's an unfair question, because it's ignoring many of the things that Jesus allegedly did.
Jesus healed a nobleman's son in John 4:43-54. A nobleman would be in position to make sure this event is recorded.
Jesus heals many sick people in Matthew 8:16-17, Mark 1:32-34 and Luke 4:40-41. Why would there not be some record of this?
Jesus fed 5000 men, women, and children. Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:30-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:1-15.
Later, Jesus feeds another 4000 men, women, and children. Matthew 15:32-39 and Mark 8:1-13
These are all large scale events, or events that could reasonably be expected to be recorded. And yet there is, as far as I am aware, no evidence for any of them. The most logical explanation is, I think, that the events never happened and the Jesus of these stories is an invention.
(II) How much archaeological evidence is there that Pontius Pilate existed?
There is the Pilate Stone, which mentions him by name and is contemporaneous, and there is a ring that has his name inscribed on it. There are also coins that he had minted.
What sort of archaeological evidence do you imagine might exist? A wooden cross bearing the inscription quoted in John 19:19? Do you think a site where 4000 people feasted on fish and bread 2000 years ago could show that secret today? Recall that Jesus' followers were mostly illiterate, could not afford parchment, and any papyrus documents they might have created disintegrated long ago.
There IS some archaeological confirmation. John 5:2 describes the Pool of Bethesda where some lame people bathed hoping to be healed. My understanding is that this Pool was built by Romans during the 1st century BC and dedicated to "heathen" Gods. Herod Agrippa, who ruled Judaea from 41 to 44 AD, built an outer wall in Jerusalem, which we now know would have contained the Pool, possibly rendering its (heathen-dedicated) use sacrilegious to Jews. In any event, the Pool of Bethesda disappears from history. Surely it would have been revered by Christians as a physical bathing-place they could look at and recall that it was there that Jesus allegedly cured a man who had been lame for 38 years. But no: It was just a name in a Gospel.
Of course, the 2nd-century myth-makers would have been happy to associate real places with their fictional Messiah. But this was a Pool which had been abandoned and forgotten when the myth-makers were doing their alleged myth-making.
Finally, one old complaint of the mythicists was that the town of Nazareth didn't even exist in the 1st century. But archaeologists found the town where expected: those digs were in the 20th century if I recall correctly.
Records of the census being taken, for example? Records of Jesus being crucified. The Bible says that when Jesus died there were earthquakes and also the bodies of dead saints being reanimated. Any record of these events? They were (presumably) noteworthy, and the Romans were fairly decent record keepers...
THere is a record of the census taken.. in 6 C.E. However, since the other one had it happening when Herod the King was massacre the innocents (only found in Matthew, and no place else), that makes a contradiction in the bible, since Herod the King died 9 years before the census.
There was more than a contemporary Roman and Jewish historian of that period, and yet none of them said a word, as if they did not know anything about his miraculous birth from a virgin, his teachings that established a world religion, and the story of his crucifixion and then his resurrection from the dead. This suspicious silence of these historians prompted many Researchers deny the existence of Jesus and consider it a late Christian industry based on a religious vision that establishes salvation and redemption by adopting a fictitious personality. Considering Jesus a fictitious person is something that has historical backing, and let's mention, for example, the number of historians contemporaneous with him or those who came immediately after him, and did not mention his story, even casually:
1- The Roman historian Valerius Maximus, born in the late first century BC and completely contemporary to Jesus, wrote a book in Latin consisting of nine parts entitled (Immortal Sayings and Deeds).
2- The Roman writer Pétrone, born between 12 and 17 A.D., wrote a satirical play called Satyricon whose attribution to him is questionable.
3- The Jewish philosopher Philon d'Alexandrie lived between the years 12 BC and AD 54 AD. He wrote dozens of books and narrated the events that took place in Palestine, yet he did not mention anything about Jesus.
4- The Latin poet Perse was born in the year 34 AD.
5- The Roman writer Sénèque lived between 4 BC and AD 65. He wrote dozens of books and some forged letters were attributed to him between him and “Paul.” Today we know that they are not true, so this philosopher is added to the list of impartial eyewitnesses who have not heard of Jesus.
Believers understand that Davy Crockett killed himself a bear when he was just three years old. Surely such an event would have been written down, yet no credible archaeological evidence for the bear-killing has ever turned up. We can only conclude that Davy Crockett never existed.
And I don't think sensible people believe that George Washington ever existed. Where is that cherry tree?
The Gospels mention the eclipse of the sun during the crucifixion of Jesus, referring to "Mark"(15:33-38).
This eclipse is not mentioned by any other historical source contemporary to that period, but the Church indicates that it was mentioned by Thallus in the first century AD. It is a text mentioned by Julius the African from the third century AD, in which he said: (Thales mentioned in his third book on history that the darkness that occurred was due to the eclipse of the sun.)
We did not receive Thales' book, nor did we receive the testimony of Julius the African itself. Rather, this text was mentioned by Eusebius of Caesarea (known as "the Mudallis") on the authority of Julius the African on the authority of Thales. Despite the delay in writing this text (since Eusebius of Caesarea lived in the fourth century AD), nothing makes us rely on the correctness of what he mentioned, especially since he writes from a Christian standpoint and tries to support the words of the Gospels with historical facts, and it goes without saying that not mentioning this eclipse at another historian calls To wonder, we will accept - in excess - the authenticity of this information and consider that Thales actually mentioned it, so what can we derive from it?
Nothing, except that there was an eclipse. What prevents that the Gospel writers base it on the incident of Jesus' crucifixion? That is, it was a regular eclipse as it always happens, then, while writing the Gospels, they linked it to the story of Jesus to give it another miracle. This testimony does not mention anything about Jesus and does not link the incident of his crucifixion to abnormal phenomena, but only mentions the occurrence of a solar eclipse. This is what we can call “structure-history-mythical,” which is to mention real natural phenomena and superimpose them on a fictitious character or events to give them historical legitimacy.
There was more than a contemporary Roman and Jewish historian of that period, and yet none of them said a word, as if they did not know anything about his miraculous birth from a virgin, his teachings that established a world religion, and the story of his crucifixion and then his resurrection from the dead. This suspicious silence of these historians prompted many Researchers deny the existence of Jesus and consider it a late Christian industry based on a religious vision that establishes salvation and redemption by adopting a fictitious personality. Considering Jesus a fictitious person is something that has historical backing, and let's mention, for example, the number of historians contemporaneous with him or those who came immediately after him, and did not mention his story, even casually:
1- The Roman historian Valerius Maximus, born in the late first century BC and completely contemporary to Jesus, wrote a book in Latin consisting of nine parts entitled (Immortal Sayings and Deeds).
2- The Roman writer Pétrone, born between 12 and 17 A.D., wrote a satirical play called Satyricon whose attribution to him is questionable.
3- The Jewish philosopher Philon d'Alexandrie lived between the years 12 BC and AD 54 AD. He wrote dozens of books and narrated the events that took place in Palestine, yet he did not mention anything about Jesus.
4- The Latin poet Perse was born in the year 34 AD.
5- The Roman writer Sénèque lived between 4 BC and AD 65. He wrote dozens of books and some forged letters were attributed to him between him and “Paul.” Today we know that they are not true, so this philosopher is added to the list of impartial eyewitnesses who have not heard of Jesus.
You're rather contradicting your own point, by admitting to the topics on which all of these individuals wrote. Why would any of them have been writing about Jesus? Valerius Maximus is the only historian on the list, and if you think he would write extensively on foreign gods or philosophers, let alone the political doings of the barbarians, you clearly haven't read Valerius Maximus at all. His work is important to understanding early Christianity, as it explains why and in what grounds the Roman empire suppressed new religions, from their own perspective; this puts the events of the gospels in a much clearer context and allows us to guess at what a Roman perspective on the same happenings might have looked like. Likewise, one of the few accounts to explore in any detail what people of his generation thought about miracles and miracle-workers.
The Gospels are full of fictions. This is not in dispute.
Let me repeat that in a larger font: The Gospels are full of fictions.
Let me repeat it upside down: ˙suoᴉʇɔᴉɟ ɟo llnɟ ǝɹɐ slǝdsoפ ǝɥ┴
IIUC, there is a Weak Myth Theory, and a Strong Myth Theory. The former claims that the story of a historic Jesus was hugely embellished and made into a Myth. The Strong Myth Theory is similar, but treats the Crucifixion of a Jesus from Nazareth as also fiction.
Almost all of us accept the Weak Myth Theory. This thread is about the Strong Myth Theory, about whether the myths are based on an actual crucifixee from Galilee, or whether that part is also fictional.
Please start another thread if you need to convince someone of the Weak Myth Theory. THIS thread debates whether there was a Galilean named Jesus who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilare, and who inspired a 1st-century religion (quite possibly including the disciples of "Chrest" who were apparently being persecuted in Rome during the reign of Nero).
The Nativity texts are fictions and have no bearing in this thread. The fiction-writer wanted Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and concocted the census story to do so. As far as is known, noone in Jesus' family ever visited Bethlehem; the census story has no relevance in this thread.
Did Jesus preach to and feed a group of 4000 people? Probably not: If he had, the fiction writers would have inflated that to 6000, or more.
Just as the parody post did with Davy Crockett, some in this thread seem to think that EITHER the Gospels are TOTALLY true, or they must be TOTALLY false. Start another thread if you think this point of view is a path to useful syllogisms.
I have presented specific evidence suggesting (NOT PROVING) that the Nazarene was a historic person. For example — Thanks, Kylie! — John's mention of the Pool of Bethesda suggests that that fiction writer, or his informant, was familiar with pre-44 Jerusalem. This is bad news for the mythicists (and they've provided no sensical rebuttal here) but not fatal: — For their scenario to begin to make sense they need dozens of fiction writers from 1st, 2nd, 3rd AND 4th centuries: they can tune the necessary interpolations and myth makings to any where or when they choose.
Little of this fiction-writing would have affected the Chrestians in Nero's Rome however. Have the mythicists here explained that? IIUC, in the mythicist view this was some other Chrest, but the myth-makers editing the Letters of Paul in the 2nd century interpolated it in to make that Letter more vivid? Is that about right?
Again: There is no dispute that The Gospels are full of fictions. ˙suoᴉʇɔᴉɟ ɟo llnɟ ǝɹɐ slǝdsoפ ǝɥ┴
There was more than a contemporary Roman and Jewish historian of that period, and yet none of them said a word, as if they did not know anything about his miraculous birth from a virgin, his teachings that established a world religion, and the story of his crucifixion and then his resurrection from the dead. This suspicious silence of these historians prompted many Researchers deny the existence of Jesus and consider it a late Christian industry based on a religious vision that establishes salvation and redemption by adopting a fictitious personality. Considering Jesus a fictitious person is something that has historical backing, and let's mention, for example, the number of historians contemporaneous with him or those who came immediately after him, and did not mention his story, even casually:
1- The Roman historian Valerius Maximus, born in the late first century BC and completely contemporary to Jesus, wrote a book in Latin consisting of nine parts entitled (Immortal Sayings and Deeds).
2- The Roman writer Pétrone, born between 12 and 17 A.D., wrote a satirical play called Satyricon whose attribution to him is questionable.
3- The Jewish philosopher Philon d'Alexandrie lived between the years 12 BC and AD 54 AD. He wrote dozens of books and narrated the events that took place in Palestine, yet he did not mention anything about Jesus.
4- The Latin poet Perse was born in the year 34 AD.
5- The Roman writer Sénèque lived between 4 BC and AD 65. He wrote dozens of books and some forged letters were attributed to him between him and “Paul.” Today we know that they are not true, so this philosopher is added to the list of impartial eyewitnesses who have not heard of Jesus.
You're rather contradicting your own point, by admitting to the topics on which all of these individuals wrote. Why would any of them have been writing about Jesus? Valerius Maximus is the only historian on the list, and if you think he would write extensively on foreign gods or philosophers, let alone the political doings of the barbarians, you clearly haven't read Valerius Maximus at all. His work is important to understanding early Christianity, as it explains why and in what grounds the Roman empire suppressed new religions, from their own perspective; this puts the events of the gospels in a much clearer context and allows us to guess at what a Roman perspective on the same happenings might have looked like. Likewise, one of the few accounts to explore in any detail what people of his generation thought about miracles and miracle-workers.
For example, there is no reference to the nineteen high priests of the Temple in Jerusalem who held that office in Philo’s lifetime; there’s no mention in Philo of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, or of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants of the first century.
For example, but not limited to the number of historians contemporaneous with him or those who came immediately after him, and did not mention his story, even casually:
6- The Roman poet Lucain was born in the year 39 AD. We have learned from his famous epic writings entitled (Pharsale), which is the name of a city, in which he was exposed to the war between Julius Caesar and General Pompeii in the first century BC.
7- The Roman Encyclopedic Pline l Ancien (23 BC-79 AD) From his books we have received his huge encyclopedia consisting of thirty-seven volumes entitled “Naturalis Historiae” and he spent five years in Palestine (from 65 to 70 AD). He does not say a word about Jesus.
8- Greek rhetorician Dion Chrysostome (circa 30-116 AD)
There was more than a contemporary Roman and Jewish historian of that period, and yet none of them said a word, as if they did not know anything about his miraculous birth from a virgin, his teachings that established a world religion, and the story of his crucifixion and then his resurrection from the dead. This suspicious silence of these historians prompted many Researchers deny the existence of Jesus and consider it a late Christian industry based on a religious vision that establishes salvation and redemption by adopting a fictitious personality. Considering Jesus a fictitious person is something that has historical backing, and let's mention, for example, the number of historians contemporaneous with him or those who came immediately after him, and did not mention his story, even casually:
1- The Roman historian Valerius Maximus, born in the late first century BC and completely contemporary to Jesus, wrote a book in Latin consisting of nine parts entitled (Immortal Sayings and Deeds).
2- The Roman writer Pétrone, born between 12 and 17 A.D., wrote a satirical play called Satyricon whose attribution to him is questionable.
3- The Jewish philosopher Philon d'Alexandrie lived between the years 12 BC and AD 54 AD. He wrote dozens of books and narrated the events that took place in Palestine, yet he did not mention anything about Jesus.
4- The Latin poet Perse was born in the year 34 AD.
5- The Roman writer Sénèque lived between 4 BC and AD 65. He wrote dozens of books and some forged letters were attributed to him between him and “Paul.” Today we know that they are not true, so this philosopher is added to the list of impartial eyewitnesses who have not heard of Jesus.
You're rather contradicting your own point, by admitting to the topics on which all of these individuals wrote. Why would any of them have been writing about Jesus? Valerius Maximus is the only historian on the list, and if you think he would write extensively on foreign gods or philosophers, let alone the political doings of the barbarians, you clearly haven't read Valerius Maximus at all. His work is important to understanding early Christianity, as it explains why and in what grounds the Roman empire suppressed new religions, from their own perspective; this puts the events of the gospels in a much clearer context and allows us to guess at what a Roman perspective on the same happenings might have looked like. Likewise, one of the few accounts to explore in any detail what people of his generation thought about miracles and miracle-workers.
For example, there is no reference to the nineteen high priests of the Temple in Jerusalem who held that office in Philo’s lifetime; there’s no mention in Philo of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, or of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants of the first century.
So you admit that Philo did not write on these topics? That does not help your case, much. If he did not address those topics at all, why would he have mentioned Jesus exclusively? At any rate, he was trying to save Jewish lives, not get them all killed.
There was more than a contemporary Roman and Jewish historian of that period, and yet none of them said a word, as if they did not know anything about his miraculous birth from a virgin, his teachings that established a world religion, and the story of his crucifixion and then his resurrection from the dead. This suspicious silence of these historians prompted many Researchers deny the existence of Jesus and consider it a late Christian industry based on a religious vision that establishes salvation and redemption by adopting a fictitious personality. Considering Jesus a fictitious person is something that has historical backing, and let's mention, for example, the number of historians contemporaneous with him or those who came immediately after him, and did not mention his story, even casually:
1- The Roman historian Valerius Maximus, born in the late first century BC and completely contemporary to Jesus, wrote a book in Latin consisting of nine parts entitled (Immortal Sayings and Deeds).
2- The Roman writer Pétrone, born between 12 and 17 A.D., wrote a satirical play called Satyricon whose attribution to him is questionable.
3- The Jewish philosopher Philon d'Alexandrie lived between the years 12 BC and AD 54 AD. He wrote dozens of books and narrated the events that took place in Palestine, yet he did not mention anything about Jesus.
4- The Latin poet Perse was born in the year 34 AD.
5- The Roman writer Sénèque lived between 4 BC and AD 65. He wrote dozens of books and some forged letters were attributed to him between him and “Paul.” Today we know that they are not true, so this philosopher is added to the list of impartial eyewitnesses who have not heard of Jesus.
You're rather contradicting your own point, by admitting to the topics on which all of these individuals wrote. Why would any of them have been writing about Jesus? Valerius Maximus is the only historian on the list, and if you think he would write extensively on foreign gods or philosophers, let alone the political doings of the barbarians, you clearly haven't read Valerius Maximus at all. His work is important to understanding early Christianity, as it explains why and in what grounds the Roman empire suppressed new religions, from their own perspective; this puts the events of the gospels in a much clearer context and allows us to guess at what a Roman perspective on the same happenings might have looked like. Likewise, one of the few accounts to explore in any detail what people of his generation thought about miracles and miracle-workers.
For example, there is no reference to the nineteen high priests of the Temple in Jerusalem who held that office in Philo’s lifetime; there’s no mention in Philo of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, or of the other Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants of the first century.
So you admit that Philo did not write on these topics? That does not help your case, much. If he did not address those topics at all, why would he have mentioned Jesus exclusively? At any rate, he was trying to save Jewish lives, not get them all killed.
If Jesus exists at all ?!! Is it possible that Philo did not mention anything about this Jesus who walked on water, healed the sick, and claimed to be God?
If Jesus exists at all ?!! Is it possible that Philo did not mention anything about this Jesus who walked on water, healed the sick, and claimed to be God?
Well, yes. Why would he do that? He wasn't writing about Judean politics at all, and if he were, he would have every reason to downplay any hint of subversive anti-Roman activity. He was an Alexandrian, who came to prominence when he was sent to Rome on a peace-making embassy to end persecutions of Jews in his home city. His most famous work is an attempt to sunthesize Hebrew and Roman philosophy, making his ancient faith more tolerable to the Roman perspective by demonstrating how it could be adapted to a Middle Platonic framework.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
