Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Ah. References to miracles and the like. Gotcha.

I wouldn't be one to argue against the existence of the historical Jesus, but I thought there was still considerable debate over the references to Jesus specifically in Josephus?

The broad scholarly consensus is that the references in the Antiquities to Jesus are authentic and that the Testimonium Flavianum, when shorn of doubtful interpolations, would read as follows:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

However, it would seem to be a particularly unbalanced case of special pleading to accept Josephus as a reliable witness to anyone except Jesus but then to reject him as unreliable or a forgery when it comes to Jesus.

tommy2bad

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

These are the two references from Josephus, for anyone who hasn't come across them before. I dont understand why they are so contintious for atheists, all they do is confirm
that Jesus had a brother named James, who was an important member of the church and that Jesus was a wise and virtuous man.
Jesus had disciples, both among the Jews and Gentiles.
Jesus was called "Christ" by some.
Jesus was a worker of surprising deeds - an allusion perhaps to miracle-working power.
Jesus was executed by Pilate by means of crucifixion.
His execution was prompted in part by the leaders among the Jews.
Christians were "named" from Him - which confirms Tacitus' own usage of the terminology. None of which supports Jesus was God but only supports a historical Jesus.
Outside of 'Jesus is a lie' type arguments theirs only dispute as to how much if any emphasis change was added by later Christian writers. I personal doubt they changed much of the text as a scribe was a serious profession and they seldom made deliberate errors in copying anything.

Toby Take a Bow

tommy2bad wrote: »

Outside of 'Jesus is a lie' type arguments theirs only dispute as to how much if any emphasis change was added by later Christian writers. I personal doubt they changed much of the text as a scribe was a serious profession and they seldom made deliberate errors in copying anything.

Not so sure about the scribes not making deliberate errors. Josephus, like anyone else writing, either now or then, had his own beliefs and political persuasions. Obviously you'd have to take everything he says against that backdrop.

It's been a while (as shown by my questions above) but I think the main contention with some of the pieces in Josephus regarding Jesus was a belief by some scholars that there was a shift in language and that some of the pieces written by Josephus would've meant that Josephus was changing his beliefs regarding certain things in the space of a short piece of a writing (he doesn't simply refer to others describing Jesus as Christ, but states in the second piece that Jesus is Christ. Also contentious may be where he states "if it be lawful to call him a man". Does Josephus believe Jesus was the Messiah?). As PDN has explained above, that scholars agree on a particular piece means that other parts are still open to question (if that's correct). That doesn't necessarily mean they want to chip away at a story: it could be down to trying to get a historically accurate version ofJosephus' work.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

Already provided two Fanny- and more to follow . ( I do have a life as well, good people)we can debate the quality when I am finished , but to say none have been provided is simply incorrect.

Do you mind pointing them out? Obviously PDN isn't satisfied that they are relevant.

tommy2bad

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Not so sure about the scribes not making deliberate errors. Josephus, like anyone else writing, either now or then, had his own beliefs and political persuasions. Obviously you'd have to take everything he says against that backdrop.

It's been a while (as shown by my questions above) but I think the main contention with some of the pieces in Josephus regarding Jesus was a belief by some scholars that there was a shift in language and that some of the pieces written by Josephus would've meant that Josephus was changing his beliefs regarding certain things in the space of a short piece of a writing (he doesn't simply refer to others describing Jesus as Christ, but states in the second piece that Jesus is Christ. Also contentious may be where he states "if it be lawful to call him a man". Does Josephus believe Jesus was the Messiah?). As PDN has explained above, that scholars agree on a particular piece means that other parts are still open to question (if that's correct). That doesn't necessarily mean they want to chip away at a story: it could be down to trying to get a historically accurate version ofJosephus' work.

Yeah your right, Josephus had a point of view himself and a commission for this piece.He was a Jew so he wouldn't have been sympathetic to the view that Jesus was God. The fact that he uses the term 'called the christ' shows his non belief in this. Their could have been translation errors and several things contribute to this view but the basic claim that their is a record of a man called Jesus that was thought to be the Christ by his followers remains.
Josephus doesn't claim that this Jesus was God nor dose he claim that he rose from the dead. He dosen't even report of reports of the resurrection except obliquely. I was just showing that any dispute as to the accuracy of the text is useless unless you can prove that all references to Jesus were later inserted and their is no justification for that belief.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you mind pointing them out? Obviously PDN isn't satisfied that they are relevant.

Post 3778 -Salome and 3775 Herod.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Post 3778 -Salome and 3775 Herod.

So, let's get this straight.

1. You say that we should expect there to be evidence from non-Christian contemporary sources in First Century Palestine about Jesus.

2. So I ask you to justify that expectation by telling us what great amounts of evidence exists for other First Century personages in Palestine.

3. So you mention some coins with King Herod on them (which by any sane definition could not justify an expectation of similar evidence to exist for a carpenter, or a miracle worker, who never held political office). And you refer to one reference to Salome by Josephus (conveniently ignoring the fact that there are three references to Jesus by Josephus).

Do you understand why I, or anyone for that matter, would find your justification for expecting more evidence (in your own words - "Letters books epipigrams scrolls statues poems pottery") in the case of Jesus to be massively underwhelming? Particularly when you gloss over the already huge amount of evidence in the Gospels and epistles written by his contemporaries?

So Marien where are all the "Letters books epipigrams scrolls statues poems pottery" for people in First Century Palestine? (We can save for later our discussion as to why you think First Century Jews would make statues of someone who claimed to be God )

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight.

1. You say that we should expect there to be evidence from non-Christian contemporary sources in First Century Palestine about Jesus.

2. So I ask you to justify that expectation by telling us what great amounts of evidence exists for other First Century personages in Palestine.

3. So you mention some coins with King Herod on them (which by any sane definition could not justify an expectation of similar evidence to exist for a carpenter, or a miracle worker, who never held political office). And you refer to one reference to Salome by Josephus (conveniently ignoring the fact that there are three references to Jesus by Josephus).

Do you understand why I, or anyone for that matter, would find your justification for expecting more evidence (in your own words - "Letters books epipigrams scrolls statues poems pottery") in the case of Jesus to be massively underwhelming? Particularly when you gloss over the already huge amount of evidence in the Gospels and epistles written by his contemporaries?

So Marien where are all the "Letters books epipigrams scrolls statues poems pottery" for people in First Century Palestine? (We can save for later our discussion as to why you think First Century Jews would make statues of someone who claimed to be God )

PDN-
- for at least the 3rd time I am not ignoring the Josephus references to Jesus (convenient or otherwise). As a matter of fact those references are somewhat central to my argument.

- In that original post you also made some points about the inaccessibility of Palestine etc etc. I have already demolished that one .

- your point 2 above is the key one- ''evidence of other 1st century personages in Palestine'' and that is what I am doing. Now you could withdraw your statement and accept that there is loads of evidence for those personages and save me all this donkey work. But I don't suppose you will , so I must potter on.

- I am providing that evidence and I am only providing the links as I go along as a simple courtesy to you.

I will make my arguments in my own time and in my own way , thank you very much.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

- In that original post you also made some points about the inaccessibility of Palestine etc etc. I have already demolished that one .

That is a blatant untruth. I never said Palestine was inaccessible. I said that it was a cultural backwater and so we should not expect a lot of contemporary literary references. You can hardly claim to have demolished that when you have only managed to produce one literary reference to anyone - and that dates from decades after Salome.

- your point 2 above is the key one- ''evidence of other 1st century personages in Palestine'' and that is what I am doing. Now you could withdraw your statement and accept that there is loads of evidence for those personages and save me all this donkey work. But I don't suppose you will , so I must potter on.

Good Lord, it's hardly donkey work to google. You seem to be doing a lot more donkey work in dodging my question and accusing others of being obsessed. So I'll ask it again:

Where is any surviving contemporary evidence of other historical figures in First Century Palestine?

If there's loads of it then you can surely do better than refer to irrelevant coins and the words of a man who wrote about Salome but who wasn't actually born when the events he records about her occurred.

So I wait for 3 days for you to answer this simple question and, although you seem unable or unwilling to answer it, you say I should withdraw my statement and "accept that there is loads of evidence for those personages". Lol

I am providing that evidence and I am only providing the links as I go along as a simple courtesy to you.

It would be a nice courtesy - but nothing yet.

I will make my arguments in my own time and in my own way , thank you very much.

Exactly, and I'm calling you out on the way you make those arguments. You make unsubstantiated statements and refuse to back them up. You dodge questions. You make ad hominem attacks about people being obsessed. Then you come back and make the same unsubstantiated statements as before as if we've forgotten.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

And your evidence that Mary did this, other than in your own head, is what exactly?

Evidence that Mary did what?

You really do need to concentrate more on the what is being said. Your deliberate misinterpretation of my post does not serve you well.

The evidence is that Mary did not do this; that the Jews did not do this.

If the Jews really wanted to discredit Jesus, they could have used His mother as a lever; they could have put Mary's life on the line.

They didn't and that is odd.

In fact, the Jews went to great lengths in order to ensure that Jesus satisfied all the requirements of the Messianic prohecy.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Pilate- mentioned by Josephus Philo and Tacitus and the attached artifacts

And at least two people that you mentioned in that list pointed to the historicity of Jesus. And more Pliny the Younger also. Lucretius also mentioned Jesus.

You're not being consistent. Indeed, it's minorly hypocritical that you accept Josephus and Tactius in respect to Pilate, but not in respect to Jesus. Even mentioning this example is also testimony to the Bible being authentic in respect to Pilate.

Are you arguing for Christianity? I'm being entirely serious in asking that question, because this is far from devastating in respect to the Gospel.

Doc Farrell

Pm sent PDN . And stay out of the megathreads! Any more than 10 minutes and you'll catch a cold!

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

Evidence that Mary did what?

You really do need to concentrate more on the what is being said. Your deliberate misinterpretation of my post does not serve you well.

The evidence is that Mary did not do this; that the Jews did not do this.

If the Jews really wanted to discredit Jesus, they could have used His mother as a lever; they could have put Mary's life on the line.

They didn't and that is odd.

In fact, the Jews went to great lengths in order to ensure that Jesus satisfied all the requirements of the Messianic prohecy.

I did concentrate on what was being said. You posted:

Wh1stler wrote:

Don't you think it is odd that the Jews were able to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God by forcing His mother to state on record that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph?

So I'm asking you, where is your source for saying that Mary was forced to state anything on record?

Toby Take a Bow

tommy2bad wrote: »

Josephus doesn't claim that this Jesus was God nor dose he claim that he rose from the dead. He dosen't even report of reports of the resurrection except obliquely.

I hear you, but in one of the quotes you posted, it has Josephus saying "He was the Christ". Which from what I can see, is Josephus affirming that Jesus was the messiah. Which would go against Josephus' belief system. But as PDN says, some of his text was clearly altered, I would presume that would be one of those latter insertions.

tommy2bad

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I hear you, but in one of the quotes you posted, it has Josephus saying "He was the Christ". Which from what I can see, is Josephus affirming that Jesus was the messiah. Which would go against Josephus' belief system. But as PDN says, some of his text was clearly altered, I would presume that would be one of those latter insertions.

Could be, more likely it a mistranslation of the original, iirc . I'd have to look it up.
It's immaterial to the case for Jesus being God either way but as you say important in understanding the evolution of the copies.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Your expectation (as expressed in the line I've bold-faced) is not realistic or historically justified. You would be hard pressed to find books referring to contemporary events of any kind in the 1st Century. Many references we have to other historical events in that period were written many years after the event. For example, historians quite happily accept the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius as good evidence for the murder of Julius Caesar, even though they both wrote over a century after the event.

Books anywhere in the first century were rare and expensive. A man with twenty books in his home was considered the possesser of an extensive library.

All of Jesus' miracles took place in Palestine, which was a rather out of the way spot on the map, certainly no literary hotseat. And many of them occurred in Galilee rather than Jerusalem.

Therefore it would extremely surprising if anyone in the First Century other than Christians wrote a first-hand account about the acts of Jesus - and it would be a fluke of lottery-winning proportions if such a book had actually survived to modern times.

Nevertheless, against all the odds, we do have Josephus (a first Century Jew) who in his Antiquities made reference to Jesus. He refers to the martyrdom of James, stating that he was "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" and also to the beheading of John the Baptist.

Scholars have long debated another work by Josephus - the Testimonium Flavianum - and some parts of it are thought to be later additions. However, there is broad scholarly consensus that the reference to Jesus as a worker of startling miracles is genuine. This would represent a level of near contemporary evidence which, given the time and place in which Jesus ministered, is far greater than historians would have any right to expect.

PDN this is your original post and the relevant paragraph is

''All of Jesus' miracles took place in Palestine, which was a rather out of the way spot on the map, certainly no literary hotseat. And many of them occurred in Galilee rather than Jerusalem''

Which refers to the remoteness of Palestine and infers the even further remoteness of Galilee . I have merely shown you it was not nearly as remote as one would think.

The rest of your latest post is just more bombast, though it does seem I will just have to potter on for more sources.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

The broad scholarly consensus is that the references in the Antiquities to Jesus are authentic and that the Testimonium Flavianum, when shorn of doubtful interpolations, would read as follows:


However, it would seem to be a particularly unbalanced case of special pleading to accept Josephus as a reliable witness to anyone except Jesus but then to reject him as unreliable or a forgery when it comes to Jesus.

By the way PDN is this the same Josephus you queried as a source for Salome ??

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

By the way PDN is this the same Josephus you queried as a source for Salome ??

marienbad: PDN's point hasn't been that there is no evidence of any other figure in Palestine, but that there is considerably more historical evidence for Jesus over a lot of other figures.

Pointing out that Josephus wrote about Salome, and consistently ignoring what he presented on Jesus is simply silly.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

By the way PDN is this the same Josephus you queried as a source for Salome ??

I didn't query him as a source. I pointed out that he is not a contemporary source.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

PDN this is your original post and the relevant paragraph is

''All of Jesus' miracles took place in Palestine, which was a rather out of the way spot on the map, certainly no literary hotseat. And many of them occurred in Galilee rather than Jerusalem''

Which refers to the remoteness of Palestine and infers the even further remoteness of Galilee . I have merely shown you it was not nearly as remote as one would think.

The rest of your latest post is just more bombast, though it does seem I will just have to potter on for more sources.

What's the point of me posting anything if you won't read what it says?

You've just quoted where I said Palestine was NO LITERARY HOTSEAT. Nothing to do with accessibility.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

marienbad: PDN's point hasn't been that there is no evidence of any other figure in Palestine, but that there is considerably more historical evidence for Jesus over a lot of other figures.

Pointing out that Josephus wrote about Salome, and consistently ignoring what he presented on Jesus is simply silly.

And the posse rallies, where have I ignored what he presented on Jesus ?
Despite me consistentaly pointing that out to repeat it yet again - now that is silly.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

And the posse rallies, where have I ignored what he presented on Jesus ?
Despite me consistentaly pointing that out to repeat it yet again - now that is silly.

Numerous times. You've claimed numerous times that historical accounts aren't enough in respect to Jesus, and then you've used those same accounts to claim that they are enough for other people. It's plainly hypocritical.

If these accounts (and less of them) are enough to demonstrate the existence of other people, why aren't they enough in respect to Jesus' existence?

Tell me simply and clearly, what are you trying to say about Jesus here.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

What's the point of me posting anything if you won't read what it says?

You've just quoted where I said Palestine was NO LITERARY HOTSEAT. Nothing to do with accessibility.

and why was it no literary hotseat ? Because of this -''which was a rather out of the way spot on the map''- with the implication the Galilee was even further .

If you wanted to say literary backwater why not just say that and leave out the geographical reference.

The meaning of your post is quite clear - it was no literary hotspot because it was remote.

I simply showed you it was not nearly as remote as one would think .

Get a grip PDN

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Numerous times. You've claimed numerous times that historical accounts aren't enough in respect to Jesus, and then you've used those same accounts to claim that they are enough for other people. It's plainly hypocritical.

If these accounts (and less of them) are enough to demonstrate the existence of other people, why aren't they enough in respect to Jesus' existence?

Tell me simply and clearly, what are you trying to say about Jesus here.

When have I cast doubts on the Josephus references to Jesus ? which is what both you and PDN have both said at this stage ?

This is the last tangential post I will reply to , I was asked ( challenged ?) to provide evidence of other contemporary personages in 1st Century Palestine. That is what I am doing. I don't see many others on here endeavouring to answer any direct questions.

As I said to PDN - I will make my arguments in my own way and in my own time.

philologos

marienbad: Simply put, what are you trying to achieve or argue in respect to Jesus? That's what I want to know. That's the topic we should be focusing on, not the tangent.

PDN has pointed out that Josephus is not a contemporary source for Herod or Salome. He's about as contemporary to them as he was to Jesus. That's a valid point. That's why I feel we need to focus on what we're trying to say about Jesus, because this is actually the topic, not the tangent.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

and why was it no literary hotseat ? Because of this -''which was a rather out of the way spot on the map''- with the implication the Galilee was even further .

If you wanted to say literary backwater why not just say that and leave out the geographical reference.

The meaning of your post is quite clear - it was no literary hotspot because it was remote.

I simply showed you it was not nearly as remote as one would think .

Get a grip PDN

I have a grip.

Remote does not mean inaccessible. :rolleyes:
Now, how about you answer my question instead of misrepresenting what I say?

Where is all the surviving contemporary evidence of other historical figures in First Century Palestine?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Your replies are getting increasing meaningless ISAW, you bring up your qualifications and then accuse me of commenting on them, etc etc and you still have no clue about my background amd I am mystified as to why you even pursue it.

YOU brough them up!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77916287&postcount=3837

Firstly ISAW you are not qualified ( and never will be) to tell me what is my misinformed belief.

If you think i should not comment on my qualifications you should not have brought them up.

Those links are still irrelevant to the point under discussion, that is just showing some church figures stopped ''insisting'' the turin shroud was genuine and had it tested type of reasoning . Though it is interesting that you say that church criticism pre ww II needed improvement.

i dont know if you are being willfully ignorant or doing this on purpose.
THIS is the CENTRAL point!
YOU again stated that about a half century ago the church was discouraging they type of study of historicity of Jesus. i produced sources which show the Church was at that time embarking on a third age of just that sort of historical scholarship.

And why is whether Bligh was good or bad has anything to do with the point ? The point is men followed him to what was to be certain death- not if he was good or bad.

the poiunt is you picked a bad example

1. they mutinied on Captain Bligh -hardly an example of following him.

Yes that would be the same Cortez the Aztecs thought was a god - Again what is your point ? I am referring to his men following him half way round the globe.

1. they had n choise Pizarro for example burned his ships when he arrived -hardly a good example of giving them the choice to follow hoim.

é. cortewz is being offered as an example of someone who didnt claim to be a god but was followed because his men respected his leadership. His entire success was totally dependent on the Aztecs believing he was a God! -Hardly a decent example to prove the point of people following people with the specific belief he was not a god is it?

Lets not get caught up in the moral standard again ISAW- I think there is a discussion already going on that.

and I was showing how it is related to this one.

Fanny Cradock

Wh1stler wrote: »

In fact, the Jews went to great lengths in order to ensure that Jesus satisfied all the requirements of the Messianic prohecy.

That is an interesting claim, especially in light of what Jesus' contemporaries actually thought about the nature of the messiah (they never conceived of him as being divine) and what his divinely appointed role would entail (again, they never conceived of the eschatological meaning behind the cross).

If you want to explore more on this then I would point you towards Tom Wright's work. I think that this and this talk would be relevant. You can also find plenty of additional information about what the Jews expected from the true messiah in his book Simply Jesus.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

I did concentrate on what was being said. You posted:

In context:

Wh1stler wrote:

Don't you think it is odd that the Jews were able to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God by forcing His mother to state on record that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph?

If Mary claimed that God inseminated her in order to conceive Jesus then she would have guilty of the same blasphemy as Jesus was and would have been liable to be stoned for adultery.

Why did the Jews miss that opportunity to 'kill' the Jesus phenomenon for good?

Which is equivalent to:

'Don't you think it is odd that the Jews were able to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God by forcing His mother to state on record that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph but didn't?'

PDN wrote: »

So I'm asking you, where is your source for saying that Mary was forced to state anything on record?

I think you understand the point perfectly; 'were able to' = 'could have' whereas 'were able to' does not equal 'did'. And the sentence 'Why did the Jews miss that opportunity to 'kill' the Jesus phenomenon for good?' suggests that in fact this was not done.

So, don't you think it is odd that the Jews were able to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God by forcing His mother to state on record that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph but didn't?

If the Jews really wanted to stamp out what did become Christianity then they could have used Mary. Then unless Jesus allowed His mother to be sacrificed on charges of adultery and blasphemy, He could have been discredited by the words of His mother.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

In context:



Which is equivalent to:

'Don't you think it is odd that the Jews were able to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God by forcing His mother to state on record that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph but didn't?'

Of course it isn't equivalent. Fair enough if you made a mistake and forgot to type the last line - but you shouldn't get stroppy at someone for reading what you wrote rather than what you meant to write.

So, don't you think it is odd that the Jews were able to prove that Jesus was not the Son of God by forcing His mother to state on record that Jesus was in fact the son of Joseph but didn't?

No, I doubt if the Jews had the power to force that at all. You are aware that they didn't actually have monolithic power to force people to do stuff? They had very limited powers under an occupying Roman army.

If the Jews really wanted to stamp out what did become Christianity then they could have used Mary. Then unless Jesus allowed His mother to be sacrificed on charges of adultery and blasphemy, He could have been discredited by the words of His mother.

I would suggest you maybe do a little reading up on First Century Palestine? You think the Jews were running around stoning adulterers every five minutes?