'Tolerance' on American Universities???
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Thursday, November 30, 2006 23:02
VIEWED: 13388
PAGE 6 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Of course there's scholarship disputing that Jesus even existed. There's very little scholarship that supports that He did. Outside the bible, there is no conclusive evidence that a single "Jesus" of the Bible existed, the main trouble being that nearly all of the history we have from that time period has been copied and maintained by Christian monks who were in no way above interpolating bits about their Lord and Savior into the manuscripts. Even the Biblical record has nothing but three years of preaching and a couple hagiographic anecdotes from Jesus's childhood.
From reading the above statement, one might firstly be lead to believe that the Bible is a merely single book by a single author. Such an assumption could not be more incorrect.
Setting aside the Hebrew Old Testament, the Christian New Testament is comprised of multiple, individual books written by (at minimum) nine different authors over a span of anywhere from 40 to 60 years (all within the first century). These individual books (by different authors) were not assembled into the Christian New Testament until 300 years after the fact.
So, firstly, the Bible is not one book, and it was not written by one author. It is a compilation of several books by several authors, all mentioning Jesus.
From reading the above statement, one might secondly be lead to believe that only the Bible (and possibly other "Christian" authors) mention Jesus. This assumption would also be incorrect as there are multiple, non-biblical references to Christ. Mostly notably, the first century, secular, Roman historian Flavius Josephus -- who mentioned Jesus specifically (including His miracles, His crucifixion by Pilate, as well as His appearance to His followers after His death).
Josephus was never a Christian by any stretch of the imagination.
There are also other, non-comtemporary, Roman historians who mentioned Jesus (and His followers), including Tertullian and Philo.
There is also a rather lengthy, contemporary account mentioning Jesus by a first century King of Edessa, named Agbarus.
So, for anyone to claim that "only" the Bible speaks of Jesus is showing either their prejudice or ignorance of both Christianity and secular history from the period.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Those who deny the historicity of Jesus may simply be looking at the evidence.
More likely, they're trying to ignore the evidence (see above).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon, you're giving me Josephus? Josephus is exactly the kind of source I'm talking about! He's the flippin' poster-child for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts. The man was a jew, but this devout jew supposedly wrote of a man named Jesus: "if it be lawful to call him a man...He was [the] Christ...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." No.
A little googling confirms that the legend around Abgarus first appeared in the 4th century. Not a contemporary source.
The nutty thing is, Cartoon, I don't doubt the existence of Jesus Christ myself, but I don't base it on an either non-existent or else highly suspect historical record. I researched the hell out of this topic back when I was in college and I'm pretty confident that your other sources are equally insubstancial.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Cartoon, you're giving me Josephus? Josephus is exactly the kind of source I'm talking about! He's the flippin' poster-child for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts. The man was a jew, but this devout jew supposedly wrote of a man named Jesus: "if it be lawful to call him a man...He was [the] Christ...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." No.
So, let me get this straight. If I say that Kennedy is a most liberal democrat, I'd be a posterchild for the Democrats?!! I don't think so.
Josephus was recording the history of what was being circulated at the time. That does not under any circumstances make him a cheerleader for the Christians, any more than my saying that Kennedy is a most liberal democrat makes me a cheerleader for the Democrats.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
A little googling confirms that the legend around Abgarus first appeared in the 4th century. Not a contemporary source.
You need to do more than google. The account was first written in the early 4th century by Eusebius -- who was quoting texts still in existence at that time (which he clearly states as much) written in the hand of Abgarus. Eusebius (who was a Christian) would likely not have gotten away with quoting something "still in existence" (which his readers could verifty) if that something were not still in existence.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The nutty thing is, Cartoon, I don't doubt the existence of Jesus Christ myself, but I don't base it on an either non-existent or else highly suspect historical record. I researched the hell out of this topic back when I was in college and I pretty confident that your other sources are equally insubstancial.
Like I said, some people would prefer to go out of their way to ignore the evidence, rather than believe it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, Cartoon, you haven't gotten it straight at all. As I said, Josephus is a shining example (poster-child) for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts, not a shining example of a Christian. I was suggesting that Josephus' writings are precisely the most infamous examples of Christian scribal interpolation on record.
Originally posted by cartoon:Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
He's the flippin' poster-child for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts.
So, let me get this straight. If I say that Kennedy is a most liberal democrat, I'd be a posterchild for the Democrats?!!
As to whether or not he's a cheerleader for the Christians depends on whether or not you credit the disputed passage:
Quote:These are not the comments of a jew. These are the comments of a Christian. He speaks of Christ's miracles as fact, not as "what was being circulated at the time."
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 amongst 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.
Quote:Cartoon, I've read all this stuff before. You really don't seem to understand the nature of historical writing in the ancient world. Nobody was fact checking back then. Much of what the ancients wrote as history we have to consider on the level of literature, nothing more. The only way to get a bead on what actually went down is to get disperate authors to agree, not by interpolating obvious Christian statements into their writings, but by finding contemporary commentators from various traditions who describe the same events. No non-Christian historian that I have ever read or met would consider the Eusebius story as anything more than a legend. I would be currious to read a modern day non-Christian scholar that credits any of your sources as evidence of Christ's historicity.
You need to do more than google. The account was first written in the early 4th century by Eusebius -- who was quoting texts still in existence at that time (which he clearly states as much) written in the hand of Abgarus. Eusebius (who was a Christian) would likely not have gotten away with quoting something "still in existence" (which his readers could verifty) if that something were not still in existence.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
No, Cartoon, you haven't gotten it straight at all. As I said, Josephus is a shining example (poster-child) for Christian interpolation and corruption of historical texts, not a shining example of a Christian. I was suggesting that Josephus' writings are precisely the most infamous examples of Christian scribal interpolation on record.
Okay. "Christian scribal interpolation".I guess that makes perfect sense. After all, I mean, by comparison, Josephus has pages and pages about Caligula's short reign, and only a few sentences about Jesus. A few sentences about Jesus, several pages on Caligula (both were upon the scene for precisely the same amout of time: one for three years, the other for four).
One would think that someone guilty of exhibiting "the most infamous examples of Christian scribal interpolation on record" would have cheered a bit more than three of four meagre sentences in his hundreds of pages of text on that century.
I can't see how such a corrupt, avid Christian cheerleader (as you claim Josephus was, even though he, himself, never claimed to be one), could've passed up an opportunity to really let it all out, and do a bit more than three or four sentences about Jesus (not to mention the early church) in his hundreds of pages of history relating to the first century, during which he lived (and his critics did not).
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
No non-Christian historian that I have ever read or met would consider the Eusebius story as anything more than a legend. I would be currious to read a modern day non-Christian scholar that credits any of your sources as evidence of Christ's historicity.
Yep. You're absolutely right. All these people who actually were there didn't know squat. Those who actually lived through those times apparently didn't know who existed and who didn't. Apparently, neither did the nine independent authors of nearly two dozen, individual books which were later incorporated into a single volume called "The Bible" (specifically the Christian New Testament of the Bible). Neither did the contempory, first century King who personally chronicled his contact with Jesus in a document which was still in existence (and quoted extensively) 290 years later in the early 4th century, when Eusebius included it in his writings.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
No non-Christian historian that I have ever read or met would consider the Eusebius story as anything more than a legend.
Well, Eusebius hung around with the Emperor Constantine, and his "Ecclesiastical History" was published during Constantine's reign -- who surely, would've read it (particularly as Constatine called the Council of Nicea specifically "clear up" any misconceptions about Christianity -- one would think he'd be interested in such things).
One would think that Constantine would be a good, contemporary character reference for any historian -- but, oh wait, Constantine claimed to be a Christian, too, so I guess we can't believe anything he would say, either.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I would be currious to read a modern day non-Christian scholar that credits any of your sources as evidence of Christ's historicity.
Oh, so Christian scholarship isn't scholarship? One must be a non-Christian to be impartial. I see. I understand perfectly well.
So, none of these people who actually lived through the events they described know anything, while everybody who came after them (and didn't witness any of this) knows everything.
I guess I can't fool you. Thanks for your intellectual openness.
Like I said, some people will contort in every which direction to avoid actual evidence.
Sorry. I'm out of my league, here, and know when it's time to stop.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh sweet irony
Originally posted by cartoon:
Like I said, some people will contort in everywhich direction to avoid actual evidence.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon, I'm sorry. In addition to disagreeing with me on some pretty fundamental issues, you've really misunderstood what I'm talking about. It is now clear to me that you don't understand what an "interpolation" is. It's not just a fancy version of "interpretation."
An interpolation occures when a scribe, in our case a Christian scribe, alters the text he's transcribing by adding a few lines here or there to give credence to his personal ideas of how the past should have been recorded rather than keeping fidelity with how it actually was recorded. Christian interpolations abound in the classical texts they transcribed. In the minds of these Christians who took the word of God as literal fact, they were simply correcting the histories they transcribed, doing God's good work, etc.
So, when I say that the stuff about Jesus in Josephus is interpolated, I mean that a Christian scribe, centuries after Josephus, inserted his own beliefs into Josephus' narrative. Josephus, from the evidence of all his other writing, is a devout Jew. It is extremely unlikely that a first century jew confronted with information about Jesus would have written about Him so dogmatically as the singular passage I quoted does.
So you really missed my point big time. All of your first century authors might be perfectly reliable, if it weren't for the Christian scribes who are responsible for the versions of these authors' texts which have survived. That's what makes the Dead Sea scrolls such an important find, as what was written on them has never been transcribed until today.
And your example of Caligula vs. Jesus actually supports my position, as interpolations tend to be short aphoristic comments and ammendations to the original text and not whole chapters (though I'm sure such vast interpolations and baulderizations do occur).
And, hey, Cartoon, please, I've been trying to answer and refute your assertions honestly, so all the dripping sarcasm and 's do nothing but undercut your own argument.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hostility indeed, but that is what we will have all the time. Good to see more people taking action.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's how Cartoon works, when it becomes obvious he is wrong he'll try and force you into a flame so that he in his head has a reason to ignore anything you post. The Guys a troll, complete with a couple of sock puppets to back him up.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
And, hey, Cartoon, please, I've been trying to answer and refute your assertions honestly, so all the dripping sarcasm and
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Cartoon, I'm sorry. In addition to disagreeing with me on some pretty fundamental issues, you've really misunderstood what I'm talking about. It is now clear to me that you don't understand what an "interpolation" is. It's not just a fancy version of "interpretation."
Yes, I'm sorry, I did misread your post. BTW, I do know what an interpolation is, but I obviously read it incorrectly.
Body isn't what it used to be.I've also heard about the allegation of later scribes adding to Josphus's works. But, it is an allegation unsupported by any factual evidence. And, if I'm correct, wouldn't the burden of proof lie with the person/people making the allegations of tampering, as opposed to the text (as we have it today) having to proove that it hasn't been tampered with?
I'm also not familiar with what the oldest dated copies of Josephus's works still in existence may be, and would be curious to discover how old (or recent) they are.
I am, however, accutely aware of the history of Biblical manuscripts (both Old & New Testaments), and they are probably the best preserved (in relation to closeness of original authorship dates) of anything in all of antiquity -- which is another reason why the books of the New Testament should not be dismissed outright as a "single book which proves itself". As I stated previously, it was not a single volume until approximately 250 years after the individual volumes which comprise it were written.
If one is to take into account that all of those volumes were written by 8 or 9 individuals, and all mention that Jesus was indeed a real person, that has to bear some historical credence. I wonder how many contemporaneous documents mentioning "Alexander the Great" exist, by comparison?
EDIT: Okay, forgive me if I go off on a tangent here, but I actually have some research related to this -- about which I'd entirely forgotten. You may or may not already be aware of this, but according what I have in front of me, the two earliest biographies of Alexander were written by Arrian & Plutarch more than four hundred years after Alexander's death in 323 B.C. That's not a whole lot of historical documentation that Alexander actually lived as a real person -- particularly in comparison to Jesus, who had multiple accounts by multiple authors who actually knew Him. (Yes, they were Christian, but that fact alone shouldn't automatically discount their testimony any more than one should automatically discount something a liberal says about liberals -- unless, someone is suggesting that we should only believe what conservatives say about liberals? Hmm... not such a bad idea.)
Also, contemporaneous accounts by Josephus and the King of Edessa, and not-long-after accounts by other secular, Roman historians (two of which had been named in a previous post). Remember -- Alexander had only two biographies, both written 400 years after his death. All of the above-mentioned accounts of Jesus are from within a single century and a half.
Yes, one might argue that aside from the written biographies of Alexander (much removed from the time of his life, notwithstanding), that there is also archeological evidence (image & name on coins, architecture, etc.), which doesn't exist related to Jesus, contemporaneously.
However, Alexander's name on ancient artifacts, in and of itself, does not prove he actually existed -- apart from the biographies. Five hundred years from now, someone could excavate someone's stash of action figures and trading cards -- but they're not going to believe that Spider-man was a real person on the basis of those items alone. There would need to be a written history, as well.
We believe Alexander existed because of the written history, not the artifacts (although, the artifacts support the history). And regarding written histories, there are not only more about Jesus, but those which exist are far more contempory to Jesus's life, than with Alexander.
Okay. End of EDI
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME