I don’t believe you are really reading what I am writing here or responding to the points I’m making. I would suggest reading what I say more carefully before responding, and especially before calling me inconsiderate. I’m disputing that it is a first hand account, not that it is a “biography”, and I am not expected to prove negatives.Any biography is going to have information that was obtained through third parties (else it would be an autobiography), so that isn’t really meaningful. And, yes, some of the “scenes” seem confusing as to point of view-who exactly was there to hear Pilate speaking to Jesus, who saw Jesus in the Garden if the apostles were all asleep, etc. But the existence of Jesus, where He went, what He taught, all seem historically probable to many serious non-partisan historians.
And as far as the burden of proof goes, if you’re here making claims one way or the other, it is considerate to back them up with some sort of references. If I went to an atheist site, I wouldn’t expect my assertions to go unchallenged.
So you admit it has little historical value. Saying that it was written as “the good news” only makes my point for me. It’s a religious document, meant to teach people about their new cult, and that is the priority of the document, not historical truth. It’s allegory.Well, what you have just said still leaves open the probability they were written from eye-witness accounts. The birth stories may be based on hearsay as the Gospels are not written as historical record per se, but as the Good News.
On Jesus’ private conversations, i.e. with Pilate, the Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes Pilate’s wife, Claudia Procles, as a saint with a Feast Day. She was present at Christ before Pilate and urged Pilate not to proceed. She later became a Christian, and there is a tradition in the Western Church on this too I believe.
I don’t see your point at all.On Jesus before the Sanhedrin, and his private conversations, well, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were both part of the Sanhedrin.
I didn’t even say I even disbelieved, I was just countering your ridiculous claims. And really, if you want to get into that, what kind of evidence would convince you that Catholicism is wrong? Most religious people are willing to admit that there is none, even proud of the fact, so I would not suggest you start accusing “people like me” of being close minded, when the vast majority of religious people brag about being closed minded, whether they realize it or not.For people like you, you will never believe, I think, unless someone can produce a full tape recording of all that Jesus said at the exact time he said it, witnessed by a notary.
People do all the time. Besides, I don’t believe that recanting or admitting it was a hoax would have saved them.Why do you think those first Apostles and Disciples were willing to suffer so much (Stephen, James) had they not either sincerely believed or saw first hand the Resurrected Christ. Would such men and women die in their hundreds willingly for a false hoax.
If I told you I had an essay explaining the historical veracity that I was the mother of George Washington, would you even bother reading it? Don’t you have better things to do then to read something you know is just obviously going to be silly? Well, the claims of Jesus’s supernatural life are equally absurd. Besides, you should make your own arguments.Read Anglican Bishop Tom Wright’s exegesis on the Resurrection and its veracity. He is a very well-regarded scholar world-over.
ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm
He didn’t claim to have had any real evidence that what he believed was true. He had a vision.Put it this way - most anyone who was convinced enough that Jesus HAD risen from the dead and performed miracles to write about it would soon be a Christian, no? Making their sources Christian ones, essentially. Don’t forget Paul was persecuting Christians before his conversion - surely his testimony is somewhat disinterested at least.
O.K. you’re prevaricating because most likely you haven’t read one serious piece of literature on the historicity of Jesus. No, I TRULY WANT TO KNOW WHAT SCHOLARSHIP YOU! HAVE RELIED ON TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Christianity is a cult and the Bible not true history. You are answering my question like the kid who didn’t complete the book report and is scrambling to change the topic. I have read many works which argue what you’re arguing. So again I’m asking what works of scholarship have you specifically read to back up your claim that the Bibles are not historical and Christianity a cult. Your absence of even mentioning one book leads me to believe you have never actually took the time to study this at all. I’ve just posted 5 world-known authorities in biblical history who are totally in disagreement with the myths you propagate here.If I told you I had an essay explaining the historical veracity that I was the mother of George Washington, would you even bother reading it? Don’t you have better things to do then to read something you know is just obviously going to be silly? Well, the claims of Jesus’s supernatural life are equally absurd. Besides, you should make your own arguments.
One, I don’t think you’ve actually read those books since you can’t make a coherent argument to someone who already believes that Jesus probably existed. Two, I’m not certain I’ve ever seen someone make that logical fallacy before. “I can list a large number of books therefore my argument is correct and yours is not” Simply listing books is not the same as justifying your claims, and asking me to do the same is not a valid request, it would no more prove what I was saying then it proves what you are saying. If you want to debate, present a counterargument. Asking for citation where appropriate is fine, but a blanket “WHAT BOOKS HAVE YOU READ” is just a lame emotional argument poorly disguised as a real request.Just out of curiosity I’ll list just some of the books I’ve read to backup the Christian view.
Father Raymond Brown’s Introduction to the New Testament, expertly written and dealing with each of the works of the Bible. After a whole life of research, he didn’t find any remotely possible argument to be made that Jesus maybe didn’t exist or that all the writings were post hoc myths.
Ian Wilson Jesus: The Evidence
Luke Timothy Johnson The Real Jesus
E.P. Sanders The Historical Figure of Jesus
Bishop Tom Wright’s works which can be found at ntwrightpage.com/
These are just some among many by world respected scholars arguing about the existence of a real Historical man called Jesus who actually preached what we now believe to be his teachings.
In the interests of reciprocity, how deep is your research into apparent falseness of our view of Jesus. Mersenne, please state what actual non-fiction works you are relying upon to make your case. Have you read anything or is this intuition. Are you one of those Holy Blood, Holy Grail followers. Or have you merely read New Age works on Jesus. What exactly have you read to back up factually your claims?
You ignored my argument and complained that about my evasion of a post I hadn’t even read yet. You’re also asking me to back up claims I never made, and you are not backing up your arguments with literature, you are listing them instead of making an actual argument.O.K. you’re prevaricating because most likely you haven’t read one serious piece of literature on the historicity of Jesus. No, I TRULY WANT TO KNOW WHAT SCHOLARSHIP YOU! HAVE RELIED ON TO MAKE THE CLAIM that Christianity is a cult and the Bible not true history. You are answering my question like the kid who didn’t complete the book report and is scrambling to change the topic. I have read many works which argue what you’re arguing. So again I’m asking what works of scholarship have you specifically read to back up your claim that the Bibles are not historical and Christianity a cult. Your absence of even mentioning one book leads me to believe you have never actually took the time to study this at all. I’ve just posted 5 world-known authorities in biblical history who are totally in disagreement with the myths you propagate here.
I do make my own arguments but it is standard procedure to back up your arguments with scholarly works as nobody is God. Even this Forum’s rules suggest pointing out the literature you use in support of an argument.
So what again do you base your claims on? Everyone has to have read something to make an argument. Please, only answer if you’ve actually read something on the historicity of the Bible and Christianity. If you do not respond with any work, I will assume YOU have NOT read a single scholarly work on what you are now arguing. Ignorance is Bliss, isn’t it, especially when looking for arguments to brush away a world religion.
Listen friend. How do you know that I haven’t read books arguing against Jesus as we Catholics understood him. I’ve read liberal historians like Crossan on Jesus, Tom Harpur who totally argues against the existence of Jesus, the Holy Blood, Holy Grail con artists, A. N. Wilson’s biography of Jesus. These all argued against what I believed but I read them with an open-mind. Your hesitancy proves only that you have not seriously studied this issue which is what I thought all along. You do need to cite authority according to Forum Rules when you make factual claims such as Christianity was a cult. But you haven’t cited one. Again for you, ignorance is bliss and it seems you’re too stubborn to quote even one work in your support to actually show you’ve actually read these things. Ah, Ignorance and a Biased Opinion. How wonderful. I know you make your own arguments but back them up at least to show it’s just not your personal opinion. But you won’t do this.You may also want to try reading things other than books you know from the onset are going to agree with you.
Now this is truly ridiculous. Christians being burned alive in the Coliseum, tortured, crucified, imprisoned, losing their heads. Your response. “People do that all the time”.People do all the time. Besides, I don’t believe that recanting or admitting it was a hoax would have saved them.
Listen buddy, I’m not your friend. I was just commenting on the books you posted to prove your deep knowledge of the subject, which noticeably didn’t include anything outside what you already believe.Listen friend. How do you know that I haven’t read books arguing against Jesus as we Catholics understood him. I’ve read liberal historians like Crossan on Jesus, Tom Harpur who totally argues against the existence of Jesus, the Holy Blood, Holy Grail con artists, A. N. Wilson’s biography of Jesus. These all argued against what I believed but I read them with an open-mind.
Again, your evasion of addressing my actual points and not making any of your own makes it pretty clear you probably haven’t read, or at least haven’t absorbed anything from those books.Your hesitancy proves only that you have not seriously studied this issue which is what I thought all along.
I was only using cult in the sense or “religious group outside the norm” which I’m hard pressed to imagine you dispute that at the time it was. By the more sociological meaning of the term, I think so, but I’m not stating that is a fact.You do need to cite authority according to Forum Rules when you make factual claims such as Christianity was a cult.
Logic isn’t my personal opinion. And again, you haven’t cited anything. It’s far too late and I’m far too tired to explain to you again burden of proof, the difference between citation and just listing authors you’ve read, and the relationship between logic, argument, conclusions, premises, and citation. Respond to my arguments. If you disagree with my premises feel free to ask for citations if it’s not something that’s obviously true. But again, a blanket demand for citations is just an appeal to authority at best, an emotional appeal at worst.But you haven’t cited one. Again for you, ignorance is bliss and it seems you’re too stubborn to quote even one work in your support to actually show you’ve actually read these things. Ah, Ignorance and a Biased Opinion. How wonderful. I know you make your own arguments but back them up at least to show it’s just not your personal opinion. But you won’t do this.
People die for their false beliefs all the time, submit to torture, are imprisoned, and lose their heads. Do you dispute this, do I need to buy you a TV? Are you going to address my point that recanting wouldn’t have saved them, or are you just going to ignore it like every other argument I’ve made?Me
“Why do you think those first Apostles and Disciples were willing to suffer so much (Stephen, James) had they not either sincerely believed or saw first hand the Resurrected Christ. Would such men and women die in their hundreds willingly for a false hoax.”
Now this is truly ridiculous. Christians being burned alive in the Coliseum, tortured, crucified, imprisoned, losing their heads. Your response. “People do that all the time”.
Now this is just unbelievable. I think I might as well stop arguing with you, because you are not here to learn but to traduce us and our faith. I’m off to bed. Good Night.
I have already responded to this request, if you can’t be bothered to read my posts then don’t respond to me.Alright kids…
Looking into these claims that Jesus did not do what is claimed nor existed. I think it would be reasonable to state where you have collected your knowledge from Mersenne.
After all would it not be gracious of you to share the wealth of information you posses.
I say this with all seriousness, I expect to see references and titles to how these conclusion came to be. We are trying to find truth are we or are we not?
I have read through this whole thread and I am not being disingenous, I have not denied anything I just want to knowI have already responded to this request, if you can’t be bothered to read my posts then don’t respond to me.
Yet again, if you want citations, I request you point out an unsupported statement of fact I made that you disagree with. You haven’t been able to do that, so I assume the request is disingenuous.