A question about the bible.

reply to post by abeverage


Look, you said "virtually ALL scholars agree that the person Jesus actually existed. Now you want to back walk that to mean the "majority" of scholars. Whatever!

There is NO evidence, outside the Bible, that confirms that the biblical character of Jesus ever really existed. If you have some, then present it.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

Look, you said "virtually ALL scholars agree that the person Jesus actually existed. Now you want to back walk that to mean the "majority" of scholars. Whatever!

There is NO evidence, outside the Bible, that confirms that the biblical character of Jesus ever really existed. If you have some, then present it.

edit on 19-6-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Ok fine let's play this game...Definition of Virtually
1 : almost entirely : nearly all

You say there is no evidence outside the Bible and so you refuse to see this?
Here is one book
Here is another

I highly recommend the second if you are an anything but a Christian as it is strictly for the science minded and deals more strictly with the evidence then faith or the religion.

reply to post by abeverage


What is your point?

Bart Ehrman has all but destroyed biblical credibility. His stance that Jesus probably did exist, based on belief and staistics, in my opinion is an apology, a compromise and an olive branch to those who's ministry would be destroyed if they taught what Ehrman has proven from their pulpits.

Your second book, the summary in your link proves my point, and cites Richard Carrier, whom I cited earlier as an example of a biblical scholar who does not agree that there is proof for the Biblical Jesus.

Almost all experts agree that the Jesus of the Bible is a composite of myth, legend, and some historical evidence. So what can we know about the real Jesus? For more than one hundred fifty years, scholars have attempted to answer this question. Unfortunately, the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" has produced as many different images of the original Jesus as the scholars who have studied the subject. The result is a confused mass of disparate opinions with no consensus view of what actually happened at the dawn of Christianity.

In this in-depth discussion of New Testament scholarship and the challenges of history as a whole, historian Richard C. Carrier proposes Bayes's theorem as a solution to the problem of establishing reliable historical criteria. He demonstrates that valid historical methods—not only in the study of Christian origins but in any historical study—can be described by, and reduced to, the logic of Bayes's theorem. Conversely, he argues that any method that cannot be reduced to Bayes's theorem is invalid and should be abandoned. Writing with thoroughness and admirable clarity, Carrier explains Bayes's theorem in terms easily understandable to historians and lay people alike, employing nothing more than well-known primary school math. He then explores the theorem's application to history and addresses numerous challenges to and criticisms of this application.

Common historical methods are analyzed using the theorem, as well as all the major "historicity criteria" employed in the latest quest for the historical Jesus. The author demonstrates not only their deficiencies but also ways to rehabilitate them. Anyone with an interest in historical methods, epistemology generally, or the study of the historical Jesus will find Carrier's book to be an essential work.

There's lots of compelling reasons to believe that Jesus was a composite character of messianic movement leaders of the time.

What are we arguing about?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

What is your point?

Bart Ehrman has all but destroyed biblical credibility. His stance that Jesus probably did exist, based on belief and staistics, in my opinion is an apology, a compromise and an olive branch to those who's ministry would be destroyed if they taught what Ehrman has proven from their pulpits.

You second book, the summary in your link proves my point, and cites Richard Carrier, whom I cited earlier as an example of a biblical scholar who does not agree that there is proof for the Biblical Jesus.

Almost all experts agree that the Jesus of the Bible is a composite of myth, legend, and some historical evidence. So what can we know about the real Jesus? For more than one hundred fifty years, scholars have attempted to answer this question. Unfortunately, the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" has produced as many different images of the original Jesus as the scholars who have studied the subject. The result is a confused mass of disparate opinions with no consensus view of what actually happened at the dawn of Christianity.

In this in-depth discussion of New Testament scholarship and the challenges of history as a whole, historian Richard C. Carrier proposes Bayes's theorem as a solution to the problem of establishing reliable historical criteria. He demonstrates that valid historical methods—not only in the study of Christian origins but in any historical study—can be described by, and reduced to, the logic of Bayes's theorem. Conversely, he argues that any method that cannot be reduced to Bayes's theorem is invalid and should be abandoned. Writing with thoroughness and admirable clarity, Carrier explains Bayes's theorem in terms easily understandable to historians and lay people alike, employing nothing more than well-known primary school math. He then explores the theorem's application to history and addresses numerous challenges to and criticisms of this application.

Common historical methods are analyzed using the theorem, as well as all the major "historicity criteria" employed in the latest quest for the historical Jesus. The author demonstrates not only their deficiencies but also ways to rehabilitate them. Anyone with an interest in historical methods, epistemology generally, or the study of the historical Jesus will find Carrier's book to be an essential work.

There's lots of compelling reasons to believe that Jesus was a composite character of messianic movement leaders of the time.

What are we arguing about?

Look I get it your an Atheist and I could care less SERIOUSLY! And we can debate that another time.

Read the books actually READ...not quote and scour the innerwebs, only a fool quotes something they have not read... READ...

It's a hard read (might be too much for you...) Richard C. Carrier a known Atheist is writing a second follow up volume to this as to the historicity of Jesus, and I happen to know why...

Saying that Jesus was not a real person is like saying that Evolution is a just a Theory. It is all the other things about Jesus Carrier puts the theorem to the test with.

reply to post by abeverage


First of all, I'm NOT an atheist.

Secondly, I won't be dismissed and told to go read a book. I am familiar with both Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier's work enough to discuss my opinions on these issues in this or any other thread on ATS.

If you have proof for the existence of the biblical character Jesus, post IT, not links to books.

reply to post by jjsr420


Yes there is. It's called human genetics. And we decoded enough of it for you to get blown away, if you compare it with what ended up in genesis and the rest.

Darren Curnoe University of New South Wales

anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org...

reply to post by abeverage


I know we disagree on the topic. But I have researched this for years. In fact this is why I choose to identify as an atheist. Because whether it's Christianity, Islam, etc. I feel it's created from the minds of men and not the result of anything divine. I would look at the links you shared. To see where you're coming from on the subject.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

First of all, I'm NOT an atheist.

Secondly, I won't be dismissed and told to go read a book. I am familiar with both Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier's work enough to discuss my opinions on these issues in this or any other thread on ATS.

If you have proof for the existence of the biblical character Jesus, post IT, not links to books.

To what a wiki link? lol You wanted to some substantial proof those two books round out that there was the places and the people. One more faith leaning the other scientific.

You are not an Atheist? The history of your posts suggested otherwise so I apologize. It makes no difference to me. Carriers book points to a real person whether that person become an amalgamation is what is debated.

But evidence for other Biblical places is as valid as Troy being found. NOVA did a great episode on The Hebrew Bible

The OP asked for evidence. I have provided some.
I am not here to say the Bible is 100% history, far from it. I am here to say there is evidence the places and people did exist. Jesus was a person, Jerusalem and the Temple obviously existed and where destroyed and conquered. Claiming there is no evidence is ignorance of modern archeology.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by abeverage

 

I know we disagree on the topic. But I have researched this for years. In fact this is why I choose to identify as an atheist. Because whether it's Christianity, Islam, etc. I feel it's created from the minds of men and not the result of anything divine. I would look at the links you shared. To see where you're coming from on the subject.

See I actually started out as an Atheist and raised that way by an Atheist Uncle. I am an amateur Astronomer, Biologist and Computer Scientist. I have studied everything from Gnosticism, Hinduism, Islam to Buddhism. I have a desire for knowledge that most of the religions does not quench. The one thing that led me away from Atheism was science both Astronomy and Mathematics (especially phi...)

Now I find myself as a spiritual person who believes not a "Christian" ideal of Jesus but what he represented. The Christian Bible is not history but there is history in the Bible the evidence is pretty much resounding. But the history does not prove the mystic or parts of faith.

Mythacists have a point but they also deny the evidence or ignore it, because they would rather disprove the mystical. Both books I posted give you balance and then it is up to you to decide, unless you become an archeologists that is the best anyone can do.

Thank you for the acknowledgement. When I was an Atheist rarely did I acknowledge a differentiating opinion from my own.

reply to post by abeverage

Jesus was a person,

Which Jesus? The one born of a virgin in Nazareth? The one who lived in Egypt? The one who met Satan in the desert? The one who walked on water or the one who spoke in parables and gave the Lord's Prayer? Are they all the same person? Probably not.

Jerusalem and the Temple obviously existed and where destroyed and conquered. Claiming there is no evidence is ignorance of modern archeology.

Just because a story is set in a real place doesn't prove the story to be true or the characters in the story to be real.

The Pyramids really exist. Does that mean that Isis really did conceive Osirus' seed from a wooden phallus, or that Isis was a real ? goddess?

reply to post by abeverage


I understand where you're coming from. Religion and spirituality works for different people. The reason I mention I see religion is inspired by the minds of men is because I have seen the ugly side of religion. Like racism, sexism, etc. It just doesn't seem there is a divine God who inspired any religions. I wouldn't doubt there are some figures from the bible were real. Because as you mentioned the temples and I believe figures like Kings David and Solomon could have been real. But we should take the stories with a grain of salt. Because we do not know if it's accurate portrayal of them.

reply to post by jjsr420


Might we be having a definitional problem?

However my question is this: Aside from the bible itself. Is there ANY -REAL- evidence supporting the claims in the bible? Any records to show Jesus actually existed? Any first-hand accounts written that aren't a part of the bible? Or does all the evidence come from the bible?

What is meant by "real evidence?" If the only thing that will satisfy the requirement is an object containing the verified writing of someone who saw it happen, then we may be in a spot.

Of course, we don't have that for Homer, we don't have it for Muhammad, we can't "prove" with 100% certainity that Edgar A. Poe wrote The Raven. Even Alexander the Great:

Practically everything we know about Alexander the Great, who lived from 356-323 B.C. comes from the historians Arrian and Plutarch, who were born in the 1st and 2nd century A.D., and historians consider their biographies to be quite valid. Yet Jim would have us disregard them, since if writings 40 years after the event don't count, then writings 400 years after the event should be completely unreliable, right?

www.kingdavid8.com...

We don't have that level of evidence for most ancient figures, but we believe those figures existed.

And Bart Ehrman doesn't reject evidence for Jesus' historicity either.

Erhman does argue against a divine/resurrected Jesus in this book, which is no surprise, but he does an excellent job of showing how all evidence favors the historical existence of Jesus, and even shows that the crucifixion is a detail that early Christians could not possibly have made up. Surprising to me, he doesn't put much stock in the references by non-Christians like Josephus and Tacitus. While he agrees that these authors certainly wrote about Jesus of Nazareth (mythicists generally argue that their references were forged), he considers them too far removed from the events to be of much use. Surprisingly to me (again), he argues that the references in Christian writings, including (but not limited to) the Gospels, are the best evidence for a historical Jesus.

www.kingdavid8.com...

So what does "Real evidence" mean, and how many other people from that time can be "proved" to exist with the standard you set?

Just because a story is set in a real place doesn't prove the story to be true or the characters in the story to be real.

The Pyramids really exist. Does that mean that Isis really did conceive Osirus' seed from a wooden phallus, or that Isis was a real ? goddess?

Why not? I actually think Isis was real as for the wooden phallus well it had better be finely sanded...

I think most of our myths have some basis in fact as a Tribe leader, Kings, Queens or Philosophers and even enigmatic carpenters who become larger than life.

The Iliad and the Odyssey are my favorite stories from Antiquity. Troy was thought to be a myth until the mid 1800's and Frank Calvert discovered it. So what makes Helen, Paris, Menelaus or the Trojans any more so?

Why if Jericho is real than does Joshua become a myth? You see what I am saying?

reply to post by abeverage


Sure, why not? A rib women and a talking snake, a man living in the belly of a fish, A deity carefully and discriminately killing the first born son of every Egyptian family, 2 of every animal in a boat.............

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by abeverage

 

I understand where you're coming from. Religion and spirituality works for different people. The reason I mention I see religion is inspired by the minds of men is because I have seen the ugly side of religion. Like racism, sexism, etc. It just doesn't seem there is a divine God who inspired any religions. I wouldn't doubt there are some figures from the bible were real. Because as you mentioned the temples and I believe figures like Kings David and Solomon could have been real. But we should take the stories with a grain of salt. Because we do not know if it's accurate portrayal of them.

Sorry drift Off topic...

Religion in it's form today (as well as many instances in the past) is a method of control. It is what stopped me from growing spiritually. When I first was interested and became curious about religion. Christianity was my first experience having other family that was. Being raised in an intellectual setting I could not fathom what Faith was nor the divine. But I could see something in them that I felt was missing in me. But I could not reconcile the Old Testament from the New nor just be taught by a preacher and thus began my own search.

This search has taken me (as I have mentioned) from one corner of religion to another and back again. But I recognized I have a soul which was a completely foreign concept to me growing up believing I was a light bulb (you know that metaphor?).

One night shortly after a lecture on PHI something in the form of synchronicity took hold of me and no matter where I looked I found the Golden ratio. Just before my first child was born and some light caught a tiny fingerprint that swirl pattern was evident...

Call it a spiritual awakening but I felt something divine wanting me to understand my existence as well as it's own (Whatever it was...).

Back on topic...

What I have found of the Bible other than some of its historical evidence is that there are some good lessons and good ways to live your life (There is also a LOT I disagree with). But I add what makes me a better person. If the Christians actually followed what was in the New Testament I really doubt we would have 1/2 the problems humanity faces...

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by abeverage

 

Sure, why not? A rib women and a talking snake, a man living in the belly of a fish, A deity carefully and discriminately killing the first born son of every Egyptian family, 2 of every animal in a boat.............

LOOK...I have never once said the Bible is 100% factual I said that the people and places existed. Stories so old get re-told and convoluted anyone knows this. But OT was historical evidence of the Bible and there is as much or more than any other document that has survived as long.

There is evidence of a flood proven by archeologist not a world wide one but one enough to spark all the myths. Jericho is one of the oldest surviving cities, Jerusalem is still a hot bed of conflict! And what if most of it is just parable? Does that give it less meaning? Thousands if not millions of other books have passed into the darkness of the ages never to found again. To say there is no evidence is groundless and folly.

I find it fascinating that this one book has lasted so long and still has such a profound impact today (as evident in our debate), I find that significance hard to argue.

Originally posted by jjsr420


However my question is this: Aside from the bible itself. Is there ANY -REAL- evidence supporting the claims in the bible?

Miracle Goldfish?

Reborn dragons?



High above the city square
Globes of light float in mid-air
Higher still, against the night
Clockwork angels bathed in light



Bathed in light 4:23

reply to post by jjsr420


In regards to your question, I don't think that the 1st Century sources of Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius Tranquillus should count since they are not "firsthand", and for that matter neither are Luke and Mark since there is no indication that they witnessed any of the events they wrote about. Matthew should be first hand, but much of his Gospel was copied from Mark, and John, who should also be first hand, doesn't agree with Matthew. Also, if you are sceptical of coincidences you might find reason to further suspect the "tacit" Tacitus and the "tranquil" Tranquillus of not telling the full story.

The Gospel of John opens with the idea of the "Word became flesh" so we might also see this as a suggestion that Christ was fiction presented to appear as historical non-fiction.

My own view is that the Bible is entirely made up of allegory and Christ is a personification of the "Word" and all of its magical "spells".

The fact that his 11 Apostles built up His church, Christian churches were built during the time of the Apostles. The biggest proof is cutting through the B.S. for a second, meditating, and throwing away your ego for a few seconds, throwing away your snide sarcasm for a few seconds, (not talking about anyone in particular, most humans have egos, many have snide sarcasm), by throwing away your ego for a few seconds, and opening your mind to the possibility of something you know not, and asking that Creator of the Universe a question, perhaps, is the bible your word? Is it real? etc. I've literally been mocked on this site for suggesting this is proof, I loosely use the word proof, I'm obviously talking about spiritual proof not court of law proof, but in the end the highest court of the universe will be a spiritual court. I've been given answers within seconds, the only advice I can give is to open your mind, throw away your ego and accept whatever happens, whatever answer comes.

Originally posted by swordwords

The Gospel of John opens with the idea of the "Word became flesh" so we might also see this as a suggestion that Christ was fiction presented to appear as historical non-fiction.

I think the idea of Christ being the Word and the Word becoming flesh means that when Christ wasn't walking the earth in the flesh that He was the one giving inspiration to holy men to produce scripture from Heaven.