It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reliable historical accounts of Jesus.

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




That is absolutely false. The names of the books weren't created until long after they were written and they were all written by unknown persons multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived.


There were no titled to the books of the NT, those are names attributed by scholars because the works themselves were untitled. Unlike the Gnostic texts. The majority scholarly consensus is that the 4 gospel books were written in the 1st century by who they are attributed to.




Although some scholars disagree, the vast majority of researchers believe that Mark was the first Gospel to be written, sometime around the year 70. This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were composed, independently of one another, sometime in the 80s or 90s. Both used a written form of the Gospel of Mark as source material for their own narratives. In addition, because both Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material in common that is not found in Mark, most researchers hold that both Evangelists also had a collection of Jesus’ sayings that they incorporated into their works. This saying source is known as “Q” and was likely assembled in the 40s or 50s. This understanding of the origins of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke explains why they are similar yet different from one another. The arrangement is called “The Two-Source Hypothesis” because Matthew and Luke are seen to have two written sources, Mark and Q.


Boston College




edit on 30-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Irananeas (spelling?), a second century Bishop, named the Gospels. By your own account, the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, was written in 70, two generations after the alleged death of Jesus. John was written in the 100s.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

If we needed contemporary eye-witness accounts for every historical character and event we could toss nearly all we know of history in the bin and forget all we know about history.

It would be VERY strange indeed if it turned out that the historical person behind the fabled name Jesus Christ never existed. It would however be just as unlikely that he was anything like what the Church claims he was. He most likely was a regular man, a supposedly disputed amateur rabbi and scribe, born out of wedlock to a man and woman, thus making him something of a mamzer and an outcast in society. He was not the Son of God and didn't transmute water into grape wine, and he did not die on the cross to magically save all mankind in the process.
edit on 31-12-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: ...



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Irananeas (spelling?), a second century Bishop, named the Gospels. By your own account, the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, was written in 70, two generations after the alleged death of Jesus. John was written in the 100s.


I didn't say he named them, I said he mentions them in his "Against Heresies" volumes. Showing that they were available at that point in time for him to mention them. And no, John wrote was Revelation and it was in 95 A.D. Right after that he wrote the gospel account and 1 John in Ephesus. He died in 100 AD according to his direct disciple.

So all the books of the NT were written in the first century, by people contemporaneous with Jesus. His half-brothers James and Jude were dead by 60 AD as well as Peter and Paul who were sentenced to death by Nero and executed.

When you are speaking about 2nd - 4th century gospels and texts it appears you are talking about the Gnostic pseudo-graphical texts. They were written several generations after Jesus from Alexandria, Egypt.


edit on 31-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



The Gospel of John was written in Greek by an anonymous author. According to Paul N. Anderson, the gospel "contains more direct claims to eyewitness origins than any of the other Gospel traditions". F. F. Bruce argues that 19:35 contains an "emphatic and explicit claim to eyewitness authority". Bart D. Ehrman, however, does not think the gospel claims to have been written by direct witnesses to the reported events.

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD. According to Victorinus[not in citation given] and Irenaeus,[not in citation given] the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Jewish Christian groups which they deemed heretical. This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.

The earliest manuscripts to contain the beginning of the gospel (Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75), dating from around the year 200, entitled "The Gospel according to John".

According to some, the Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages, summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:

An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.
Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process. The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.
en.wikipedia.org...

I know it is wiki but is there any evidence that can contradict what it says?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes, see the link above from Boston College. It clearly admits there is a slim minority of scholars who believe the later dating, but that's not anywhere close to the majority consensus of scholarship.

I would like to point out that it's very hard for scholars to get their Doctorate by writing a dissertation titled "Why past scholarship is correct" by Bart Ehrman.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
Irananeas (spelling?)

Also a reply to: NOTurTypical

You are looking for Irenaeus, a zealous persecuter of the Gnostics who established the canonical basis of four gospels. Not because they were the four we now have for any other particular reason than that Irenaeus preferred the number 4 above all other numbers. It was the perfect number to him. Almost like God supposedly has a thing with the number seven.

en.wikipedia.org...

His writings, with those of Clement and Ignatius, are taken as among the earliest signs of the developing doctrine of the primacy of the Roman see.[2] Irenaeus is the earliest witness to recognition of the canonical character of all four gospels.
[2]: Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 14. Anchor Bible; 1st edition (October 13, 1997). ISBN 978-0-385-24767-2.

edit on 31-12-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: added second ref



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim




You are looking for Irenaeus, a zealous persecuter of the Gnostics


I can't find any information on him persecuting anyone.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Tangerine

If we needed contemporary eye-witness accounts for every historical character and event we could toss nearly all we know of history in the bin and forget all we know about history.

It would be VERY strange indeed if it turned out that the historical person behind the fabled name Jesus Christ never existed. It would however be just as unlikely that he was anything like what the Church claims he was. He most likely was a regular man, a supposedly disputed amateur rabbi and scribe, born out of wedlock to a man and woman, thus making him something of a mamzer and an outcast in society. He was not the Son of God and didn't transmute water into grape wine, and he did not die on the cross to magically save all mankind in the process.


Yes, we do need contemporaneous documentation to prove the existence of someone and it does exist for most historical persons and events. Would you prefer that we just make up stuff and call it history?

It wouldn't be strange at all if Jesus never existed. Would you find it strange if Odin and Zeus and Osiris and Isis and Cernunnos never existed?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

These are the references mentioned so it isn't a minority or one person as you seem to want others to believe.

As far as Bart Ehrman goes he is a leading historian in the field and you could easily have looked it yourself but he received his PHD in 1985 so the references and research this came from had nothing to do with a doctorate which he already had.

Let me ask you something. You said you had been studying these things for 15 years yet you act like you will not read or except research on the subject from some of those who lead the field. Just what kind of research is that if you exclude some of the best research. That doesn't seem like research at all.




E P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, (Penguin, 1995) page 63 - 64.

Bart D. Ehrman (2000:43) The New Testament: a historical introduction to early Christian writings. Oxford University Press.

Bart D. Ehrman (2005:235) Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew Oxford University Press, New York.

Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1995:287) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Quote: „Matthew, like the other three Gospels is an anonymous document.”

Donald Senior, Paul J. Achtemeier, Robert J. Karris (2002:328) Invitation to the Gospels Paulist Press.

Keith Fullerton Nickle (2001:43) The Synoptic Gospels: an introduction Westminster John Knox Press.

Ben Witherington (2004:44) The Gospel code: novel claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Da Vinci InterVarsity Press.

F.F. Bruce (1994:1) The Gospel of John Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Patrick J. Flannagan (1997:16) The Gospel of Mark Made Easy Paulist Press

Paul N. Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel, p. 48.

Anderson 2007, p. 19."These facts pose a major problem for the traditional view of John's authorship, and they are one of the key reasons critical scholars reject it."

Lindars, 1990, p. 20."It is thus important to see the reasons why the traditional identification is regarded by most scholars as untenable."

The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Volume 3 Abingdon Press, 2008. p. 362 "Presently, few commentators would argue that a disciple of Jesus actually wrote the Fourth Gospel,..."

Marilyn Mellowes The Gospel of John From Jesus to Christ: A Portrait of Jesus' World. PBS 2010-11-3. "Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion;..."

D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. Zondervan; 2 New edition. 2005. Pg 233 “The fact remains that despite support for Johannine authorship by a few front rank scholars in this century and by many popular writers, a large majority of contemporary scholars reject this view.”

"To most modern scholars direct apostolic authorship has therefore seemed unlikely." "John, Gospel of." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005


"Fonck, Leopold. "Gospel of St. John." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 9 Jun 2009". Newadvent.org. Retrieved 2014-06-18.

Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 268.

" Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. p. 57.

edit on 31-12-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Irananeas (spelling?), a second century Bishop, named the Gospels. By your own account, the earliest of the Gospels, Mark, was written in 70, two generations after the alleged death of Jesus. John was written in the 100s.


I didn't say he named them, I said he mentions them in his "Against Heresies" volumes. Showing that they were available at that point in time for him to mention them. And no, John wrote was Revelation and it was in 95 A.D. Right after that he wrote the gospel account and 1 John in Ephesus. He died in 100 AD according to his direct disciple.

So all the books of the NT were written in the first century, by people contemporaneous with Jesus. His half-brothers James and Jude were dead by 60 AD as well as Peter and Paul who were sentenced to death by Nero and executed.

When you are speaking about 2nd - 4th century gospels and texts it appears you are talking about the Gnostic pseudo-graphical texts. They were written several generations after Jesus from Alexandria, Egypt.



I was speaking about exactly that which I said I was speaking about. No, I wasn't speaking about the Gnostic gospels. You'd be hard pressed to find any actual scholars who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels. You're mixing folklore with historical fact.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: NOTurTypical

These are the references mentioned so it isn't a minority or one person as you seem want others to believe.

As far as Bart Ehrman goes he is a leading historian in the field and you could easily have looked it yourself but he received his PHD in 1985 so the references and research this came from had nothing to do with a doctorate which he already had.

Let me ask you something. You said you had been studying these things for 15 years yet you act like you will not read or except research on the subject from some of those who lead the field. Just what kind of research is that if you exclude some of the best research. That doesn't seem like research at all.



He earlier posted something from a blogger on a Christian website and claimed the person was a historian. I suspect that his sources are from Christian websites and he simply doesn't question them. This is very common. Most Christians of my acquaintance have not sought out any truly scholarly sources and certainly not any that challenged their beliefs. They started from the assumption that that which they had been taught from childhood was accurate and if they did encounter something that challenged that, they quickly dismissed it. In a way, it's understandable because much evidence (or, in some cases, lack of evidence) presents an emotional threat to them at a deep, foundational level. It's like a young child being told that Santa doesn't exist long before s/he's ready to accept it. Not only is it a deep loss, they realize they've been lied to by those they trust the most. Those who accept it best are those who are curious enough to ask questions and come to the conclusion themselves.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

I am afraid you may be right that he will not look at any scholarly sources that may challenge his preconceptions. I got that feeling from him when he refused to read the article in the OP from a respected journalist. He did say he would later read it and get back to me but that never happened at least getting back to me part.

For the first time in my life I am actually finding biblical accounts interesting so when I read how they date the pieces they have recovered to when certain verses appeared in texts it is a bit exciting to learn what the original NT actually said not what it says now.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine


Are you saying Christian websites aren't home to some real "true scholars"?

Also, while it is true most Christians will quote Christian sources for their information, it is also true that most secularists will quote secular sources for their information. Unfortunately, that doesn't prove a damn thing except that everyone has a bias towards information and/or scholars that confirm their own beliefs/understandings....

A2D



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

there is a difference actually...

Christian sites tend to use any information they can find to prove their beliefs are correct... Whereas Secular sites mostly have nothing to prove...

Ken Ham is a perfect example of such... his site, so called museum, and research is a joke... even to most Christians...

I personally would trust a secular scholar over a Christian scholar any day of the week if I was actually looking for truth... even if I was a Christian

I also find it funny how many people will bash Bart Ehrman... yet when you watch his debates he ruins every Christian he encounters...




posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Tangerine


Are you saying Christian websites aren't home to some real "true scholars"?

Also, while it is true most Christians will quote Christian sources for their information, it is also true that most secularists will quote secular sources for their information. Unfortunately, that doesn't prove a damn thing except that everyone has a bias towards information and/or scholars that confirm their own beliefs/understandings....

A2D


I said exactly that which I intended to say. I thought I was pretty clear. True scholars rely on testable evidence not belief and they document the testable evidence that backs up their conclusions. I'm perfectly willing to accept a Christian scholar who backs up his conclusions with actual testable evidence instead of unsubstantiated claims and convoluted thinking. Can you give me some examples of Christian scholars who do that?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Can you give me some examples of Christian scholars who do that?


The video I posted does exactly that and shows you
how much Bible fact is absolutely accepted by even
the foremost atheist Biblical scholar Anthony Flew.
Who also abandoned atheism BTW.

Did you even watch it?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Tangerine




Can you give me some examples of Christian scholars who do that?


The video I posted does exactly that and shows you
how much Bible fact is absolutely accepted by even
the foremost atheist Biblical scholar Anthony Flew.
Who also abandoned atheism BTW.

Did you even watch it?



I don't watch videos. I used to but found almost all of them to be rubbish. This is a bulletin board where people can easily post their comments and sources.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The vast majority of scholars conclude that the Christ figure from the NT was in fact inspired by a real man in that region, at that time. It's a near unanimous consensus in fact....

To hold the stance that the Christ figure from the NT was an invention or never existed at all is quite absurd.

Furthermore, the "lack of historical evidence" argument is one of complete misunderstanding. Most writings of antiquity are lost, very few survive. Our sources for anyone in the ancient world are scarce and rarely are they contemporaneous. Usually having been written decades or centuries after the fact. Not only that, the more obscure and humble in origin the person is, the less likely they will be documented.

As an example, Hannibal the Carthaginian general was very famous and well known...yet how many contemporaneous historical documents do we have concerning this well known figure.....If you guessed zero, you'd be right, and you would also see my point. If Hannibal, well known and famous, has zero contemporaneous historical accounts, why would a measly carpenters son turned galilean preacher be any more documented?

Point being: In ancient times, historical documentation almost always came AFTER the fact, very very very rarely was it contemporary....and even if it were, the odds of contemporary documentation surviving and subsequently being found is next to none.

A2D



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

This is a bulletin board where a picture or video says
a thousand words.

Just watch it, or quit squawk'n.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join