Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

Stays up all night worrying about if there really is a dog.

Woops ... didn't scroll down to see you answer.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I start from no assumption, it's a simple calculus:

I believe you.

1) Within the historical community you need two contemporaneous cross references to establish that someone existed.

Peter, John and Matthew.

2) There are no such cross references for Jesus (or for his brother, I'm told).

I'd have to go back and look to see what the specific documents are but I think the existance of James as well as his "trial" and execution are pretty well documented and are generally accepted. They are accepted even to the point of some alleging that the acount of the death of Stephen in acts is a rewrite of the execution of James.

Additionally some assert that it was the death of James that gave Paul a free hand to invent his own doctrine without oposition. Those types of theories are, of course, are dependant on the existance of James. Even Biblical accounts show there may have been some discussion in regards to the significance of Mosaic law and the need for gentiles to follow it.

Conclusion: As far as impartial historians are concerned, Jesus is in the realm of folk tale, myth, legend, etc., but not history.

I don't believe that this is the position of all historians. I'm not sure what we are considering as a historian here but there are many many articles and books written on the general topic by people who sign their name with lots of letters (cridentials) in front of it.

If it were a simple matter of a lack of documentation to prove that Jesus ever existed, I don't think any one could write much of an article let alone a book. As a historical matter, if that were really the case, I can't see a historian (scholar) devoting much more than a foot note to the subject in an article or book mostly devoted to some other subject. As it is, there are "scholars" who go to great lengths to present cases for a Jesus other than the Biblical Jesus. Some argue for no Jesus at all, others for one that lived a hundred years earlier and was somebody completely different, some for a Jewish Jesus whos words Paul changed around after James died, to...you name it.

 

[MikeFerrara]

in the end, we all decide what we will believe

it's our responsibility, and it's our call to make

i think this has been a great discussion, imho

Me too.

I enjoy the topic even though I've spent so much time on it that I should have spent working. LOL

 

[H2Andy]

Peter, John and Matthew.

the writings that bear their names are not guarantees that they in fact wrote them.

all historical indications point to the fact that no first-generation Christian (i.e. those who actually knew Jesus personally) wrote any surviving texts.
none of the Gospels says "I was there. I saw it with my own eyes."
by their own terms, they are not first-person accounts, rather re-tellings of
stories the writers have heard.

the one exception may be the Gospel of Thomas. it is the earliest known (though not canonized) historical writing regarding Jesus. nevertheless, it probably wasn't written by Thomas either.

as to the other books of the New Testatement, most of the Pauline letters are authentic beyond a doubt. Someone named Paul wrote them in the 50's.
however, Paul never claims to have known Jesus, and in fact admits that he did not (one of the big obstacles to his ministry)

the rest of the letters, though attributed to a variety of "first generation" writers, are simply too old to be really written by them.

I enjoy the topic even though I've spent so much time on it that I should have spent working. LOL

tell me about it ...

 

[Thalassamania]

Peter, John and Matthew.

There is no creditable claim that any of them wrote until many years after Jesus’ alleged death, resurrection, etc.

I'd have to go back and look to see what the specific documents are but I think the existance of James as well as his "trial" and execution are pretty well documented and are generally accepted. They are accepted even to the point of some alleging that the acount of the death of Stephen in acts is a rewrite of the execution of James.

I just did, and my goodness … they don’t know if the translation was “brother” or “cousin,” there’s augment about as to if James was Mary’s son or the son of Joseph by a different wife (and thus an elder brother), and on and on, confusion and error ad infinitum.

I don't believe that this is the position of all historians. I'm not sure what we are considering as a historian here but there are many many articles and books written on the general topic by people who sign their name with lots of letters (cridentials) in front of it.

No, it’s the assumed fact, given the lack of proper evidence, of those historians who are not afraid to play by the rules. Any historian who says otherwise is making a “special exception” for this case. In fact, David Noel Freeman (the General Editor of the Anchor Bible Series and many other works) posits in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34: "We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

If it were a simple matter of a lack of documentation to prove that Jesus ever existed, I don't think any one could write much of an article let alone a book. As a historical matter, if that were really the case, I can't see a historian (scholar) devoting much more than a foot note to the subject in an article or book mostly devoted to some other subject. As it is, there are "scholars" who go to great lengths to present cases for a Jesus other than the Biblical Jesus. Some argue for no Jesus at all, others for one that lived a hundred years earlier and was somebody completely different, some for a Jewish Jesus whos words Paul changed around after James died, to...you name it.

Beats the heck out of me. It seems to me that the ball should be in the archeologist’s court at this point, but then look at how they screwed up with the claims to have found James’ ossuary, which turned out to be a fraud. “Biblical Scholar” always struck me as one of those fabulous oxymorons.

OK, we’re all friends, I want to stay that way, we’ve done real well so far and I don’t want to put the kibosh on that. On re-reading this I know it is a little over the top, but that can be fun to.

Belief and faith differ from historical fact, claims base solely on hearsay can not be viewed as real attempts to get at the facts. There are many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus, but if you want the facts of history, you cannot put together an account without even one (not to mention the required two) reliable eyewitness accounts.
Maybe there was an historical Jesus. Maybe loosely modeled on someone whose actual history got lost, but that’s just speculation. But, as good (or better) a case can be made for the historical existence of Herakles as for Jesus. Just as for the Herakles myth there’s an abundance data that supports the mythical evolution of Jesus’ story. Almost every detail in the gospel stories occurs in earlier pagan and/or Hebrew stories. But, there’s no evidence to demonstrate historicality of a Jesus "the Christ," just evidence that some people believed in him.

If you accept hearsay and take believers’ accounts as historical evidence, then shouldn’t you be consistent and extend your credulity to other mythos? How about Herakles? His story parallels Jesus’ so well that denying Herakles a position as a historical fact belies and contradicts the methodology used to establish Jesus.

The Herakles myth resembles Jesus’. Both were human from the union of a god and a chaste mortal. Herakles was on earth as a mortal helping people and performing miracles. When Herakles died, he rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Sound familiar? Herakles was the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

The data on Herakles is like that on Jesus. There are well know authorities like Hesiod and Plato who write of him. And there are stories of Homer. Aesop refers to him, even quotes him. Joesphus, in fact, mentions Herakles more times than Jesus (in the same book)! Tacitus also mentions Christ and Herakles many times in his Annals.

But (and here’s the rub) we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses concerning Herakles (or for that matter, Jesus). All information about both of them comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Herakles? Why not? Just because his is the son of the wrong god? Of course we shouldn’t and the same must apply to Jesus if we are to have any consistency.

You may doubt that a “historical” Jesus could grow from myth because you’ve not thought about it. There is plenty of precedence for this. We can all think of examples of myth taken from history (Troy, George Washington and the cherry tree, or the silver dollar toss) but what about “history” arising out of myth? Trust me, there are clear and obvious examples: the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Herakles, Theseus, Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, Daedalus and Icarus, as well as places such as Atlantis. These writers put their mythological heroes and places into an invented historical time line. Herodotus, even studied the myths and determined when Herakles lived.

Today belief in urban legends, turn pure fiction (or hoaxes) into history as does propaganda spread by politicians (also fiction) and believed by their supports (am I stretching the TSO as this stage to mention WMDs, al Qaeda and Iraq in a strictly historical and academic sense?).

You (like I) probably think that Herakles and other Greek gods are just myth because you do not believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so does its gods. Christianity and its church authorities still wield influence on governments, institutions, colleges, etc. and without an “historical” Jesus, Christianity dies. So they try and defend the “historical” Jesus, at all cost, even when faced with the most unreliable of sources.

A lot of folks want to believe in something and at this time, for many, its Jesus. Belief alone can create intellectual bleed through into secular thought, even down to the most used swears and oaths. Christian authorities advance the view of an “historical” Jesus over and over so that, just through being so oft repeated (remember how well the repeated big lie worked for Hitler and Stalin) it finds a comfy couch in the public consciousness. But it just ain’t so. When one makes an historical claim, the assertion should depend solely on the evidence and not require belief, since beliefs can live comfortably without any evidence what-so-ever.

 

[Thalassamania]

What some other thinkers have said on the subject:

When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life. - Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. - Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions - Steve Mason, Professor of Classics, History and Religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)

It was not until the third century that Jesus' cross of execution became a common symbol of the Christian faith. - John Romer, Archeologist & Bible scholar (Testament)

What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things. - Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p. 9)

When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards.- David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and General Editor of the Anchor Bible Series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)

Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus. -Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself. - Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Catholic Papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts - Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

 

[TheRedHead]

I think you need to retire from this thread, Thal. Your post on deep diving made absolutely no sense.

 

[Thalassamania]

Roger that. But it's addictive, like the stupid conversations we had in college when when should have been sleeping, or loving, or something ... anything!

 

[H2Andy]

thas, i hear you

but the difficulty in establishing Jesus's historicity does not preclude the success of the movement which bore his name.

how on earth did an obscure Judean sect, later turned cult in the context of the Roman Empire, come to so dominate the life of that Empire that in 300 years or so became the official religion of the land?

i think it's a fascinating story, and the reason why so many people embraced Christianity (some to the cost of their lives) are very relevant today

that's what i am interested in

i find much of value in the Jesus tradition, though I believe he was a man (perhaps a few men whose teachings got garbled together), and I believe he is not coming back, etc. etc.

today's world could use a lot more of Jesus' teachings

and what were those teachings? at the core of it is what God wants from us (for now, let us not debate what God means).

what did God want? he didn't want people to go to church, or make a showing of being religious, or say that they believed in God

God wanted people to feed the orphans, take care of the widows, to not bear false witness, to take care of their families.

in other words, God wanted action towards fellow men. that's what it means to love God: to take care of others is to love God.

it's not about rituals or ceremonies. it's about doing things for other people. it's about living a life of giving and treating others with respect.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I just did, and my goodness … they don’t know if the translation was “brother” or “cousin,” there’s augment about as to if James was Mary’s son or the son of Joseph by a different wife (and thus an elder brother), and on and on, confusion and error ad infinitum.

LOL. See? If James didn't exist he couldn't be a brother or a cousin. If Jesus didn't exist, Jame still couldn't be the brother or cousin of Jesus. Why bother about the specifics of the translation if niether one existed in the first place? Doesn't it remind you of reading this mornings paper? You can't get the straight story there either. Just think of the trouble historians will have 2000 years from now. Rather than having almost no documentation, they'll have the oposite problem. there will be thousands of news paper articles, new netwek reports, internet posts every day for each event and all will conflict on many points including the basic facts.

Imagine the great discussions the three of us could have with thousands of conflicting documents. With what some reporters are doing with photo shop we'll even have conflicting photographs.

I'll have a picture that shows the bomb killed 2. Andy will point out that I don't have an autographed copy of the photo. You 'll have a picture showing the building in tact and be demanding proof that there was a bomb at all and further insisting that no one was killed because we can't prove the dead people ever existed in the first place.

Oh, wait that happened that happened a couple of weeks ago.

LOL and with that, I am out of ammo.