NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[jammies]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not convinced there was a historical Jesus, or at least I think the question may be unanswerable.

"Jesus as a living, breathing person probably didn't exist - it was actually all about another guy with the same name".

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Lately, I have been troubled in my own spiritual journey about the very function of "religion". I am a Christian. I was raised an evangelical, and I am quite content to remain in this tradition for reasons that I am still in the process of working out. Quite simply, I am most troubled by this: does my religion accurately reflect what its founder and icon intended and taught when he was alive? If we are able to strip the theological constructs that have been cobbled together around Jesus of Nazareth, what are we left with? A Galileean peasant who sought a new (or renewed?) kind of religious reform that sought to emphasize inward piety over outward expression. A fierce critic of the existing religious establishment who championed the cause of the poor, the marginalized, and the hopeless. A man who spoke openly about judgement for those who would make themselves into saints, and justice for those who had no delusions about their own social status. So, if Jesus was all of these things, how does this affect my own "religion"?

Jesus was a Jew, and because of his social standing, his geographical limitations and his own culture, he spoke to Jews. His followers were Jews. His "mission" was unto the Jews. His entire world was very thoroughly Jewish. For that reason, it only makes sense that his message adopted the deeply woven cultural fabric of Second Temple Judaism, but does this mean that Jesus was overly concerned about religion? About "Jewishness"?

I don't think so.

Religion and culture are far too closely intertwined to be easily disentangled, and I am coming to believe that we should not even bother to try. I am a "Christian" most certainly in large part because I am a Canadian of European descent. Just as Jesus was a Jew because he was, well, born Jewish. I think that had Jesus been Greek, or Roman, his message would have been similar in that he still would have championed the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized (incidently, is this not perhaps the reason why the Christian Church is thriving in developing countries? Could it have something to do with the fact that Jesus message resonates among the destitute?), but would likely also have spoken against the false sense of piety that accompanied offerings to the pantheon of Roman gods. Zeus would have been the supreme Lord of the Universe, but our devotion to him would be different than it had come to be construed.

I can't change the fact that religious strictures, dogma and traditions were developed around this truly remarkable figure who—in a very unique fashion—altered the focus of his followers away from the Temple, the rituals, the pomp and the omens and towards what really matters: altruism and virtue. I am in many ways bound to my Christian cultural distinction, and it is very much my religion. But in practice, I should like to think that my expression of my belief in God and in this man whom was claimed by others to be a god transcends my own orthodoxy.

Religion is not right, nor is it wrong, it simply is. And I think this is an important part of what Jesus sought to do: forget conversion. Forget sacrifice. Forget penance. Forget worship. Celebrate God in your relationship to one another. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the father except through me." I think more accurately he was saying: "Look at me! I am a poor, partially literate craftsman who is hungry and tired and without a place to live. But I am feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and raising the dead! I am all about living my life for the benefit of others! This is my way! This is my truth! this is my life! And this is what matters to God!"

Why did the Jews hate Jesus? Why did they kill him? Because he threatened the very function of the religious establishment of which he was a part. With Jesus ethic and his practice in place among the masses—especially among the poor—the Temple became meaningless, and this made him a very dangerous man. I do not believe it was Jesus hope or his mission that humanity convert to Judaism; I certainly do not believe it was with the intent that everyone become Catholic or Protestant or Muslim. I believe that he believed that self-sacrifice was the key to spiritual satisfaction.

So. I will keep my religion. Not because I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I will keep it because it is apart of who I am, but it is no good unless I practice my religion (whatever it happens to be) the way Jesus practiced his.

Great post my friend...and I am very sorry to hear of your soul searching.
I hope you are able to deal with it as opposed to it dealing with you.
You are probably one of the smartest people on either side I know, and Im sure you will find your way out of your morass one day soon.
The way I view you has always been "someone who is trying to rescue your religion, or your personal Jesus from the grasps of the Moral Majority or the Religious right". Its a fight I wouldn't wade into at the best of times.
Your view of Religious History is more accurate than the 99% of people, theist or non. Of course you and I both know the line in the sand where actual proof of Jesus is skewed....and further, even if he did exist all that is attributed to him is even further distorted. The Jesus Seminar, for example, concluded that approximately 85% of the words and actions of Jesus as reported in the New Testament are not authentic.
Flatly borrowing lines from the New Testament cannot be taken at face value, the controversy regarding authenticity is too great. In saying that those who do use the NT as a guide to morality and understanding probably dont read or understand the document as its written.
I can as most do flatly use quotes and ask questions like:
Was Jesus Compassionate and pick out these..."Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

Or How Moral was Jesus and use these....If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)
I think the Historical Jesus will always be somewhat of a stranger. No writer of his time confirms his story. The NT is contradictory and contains many historical errors. The story is filled with outrageous miracles. Most of the material is borrowed from pagan religions, and as with the pagan ideas, they are simply myths and fables. There is nothing wrong with myths and fables as long as one views the parables for what they are. You can learn a great deal from the prose of the ancient.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not convinced there was a historical Jesus, or at least I think the question may be unanswerable...

There is certainly nothing in the way of direct evidence to conclude that there was an historical Jesus, but given what we do have, I dare suggest that the likelihood of his existence is very, very high.

Consider some of the best third-party sources:
• Josephus made brief mention of Jesus and his sect before the end of the first century (Many consider the entire Testimonium Flavium to be a late insertion, and while I do not believe it is all genuine, After a fair bit of my own research I have come to conclude that there are original elements in the account in Ant. 18.3.3 §§63–64.
• Several of the rabbinic tractates make mention or allude to Jesus prior to the third century.
• Greco Roman historians mention either Jesus or his followers in the late first and early second centuries.

Given the very rapid movement of the Christian phenomenon very shortly after Jesus had died, I think that it is more than plausible to believe that Jesus was a man who lived and died in Judaea. It is preposterous to think that so many were willing to commit their lives and to die for such a fabrication. Furthermore, if Jesus had been invented, I would think that those behind the rouse would have done a much better job and created a much more remarkable figure than a peasant from Galilee.

[troutman]

Third-party evidence (hearsay), (and evidence that is not contemporary) is hugely unreliable. It is not admissible in a court of law for good reason.

The "peasant from Galilee" is a common archtype in many world mythologies. So are virgin births, miracles and resurrections.

This does not have to diminsh the Christian message - it is still important, whether Jesus lived or not. I don't think we can answer that question with any certainty. It is fair as Text has done, to assign a probability to it.

[Cheese]

[quote=Textcritic;1081120]

Consider some of the best third-party sources:
• Josephus made brief mention of Jesus and his sect before the end of the first century (Many consider the entire Testimonium Flavium to be a late insertion, and while I do not believe it is all genuine, After a fair bit of my own research I have come to conclude that there are original elements in the account in Ant. 18.3.3 §§63–64.
• Several of the rabbinic tractates make mention or allude to Jesus prior to the third century.
• Greco Roman historians mention either Jesus or his followers in the late first and early second centuries.



Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:
Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.
Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.
Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
(Josephus, Wars 6:3)

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.
Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.
Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.
Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

More....

'Jesus of Nazareth' supposedly lived in what is the most well-documented period of antiquity – the first century of the Christian era – yet not a single non-Christian source mentions the miracle worker from the sky. All references – including the notorious insertions in Josephus – stem from partisan Christian sources (and Josephus himself, much argued over, was not even born until after the supposed crucifixion).The horrendous truth is that theChristian Jesuswas manufactured from plundered sources, re-purposed for the needs of the early Church.
It is not with a human being that the Jesus myth begins. Christ is not a deified man but a humanised god who happened to be given the name Yeshu. Those real Jesuses, those that lived and died within normal human parameters, may have left stories and legends behind, later cannibalised by Christian scribes as source material for their own hero, but it is not with any flesh and blood rebel/rabbi/wonder-worker that the story begins. Rather, its genesis is in theology itself.

Also...The Life of Flavius Joseph

[Cheese]

I apologize for the length of this next part, but I am not an expert on Rabbinic Tractates....(from iidb.org)


The most important rabbinic writing is the Talmud. It contains two parts: the Mishna and the Gemara. The Mishna consists of oral traditions that circulated in Judaism from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (compare Mk 7:1-13). They were, according to tradition, written down in Hebrew by Rabbi Judah. (Additional traditions, which did not find their way into the Mishna, were later incorporated into a work called the Tosefta.) Around these traditions arose various commentaries called Gemara, which were written in Aramaic. Together, the Mishna and Gemara make up the Talmud.

The Gemara, which arose in Palestine, was combined with the Mishna sometime between A.D. 350 and 400 to make up what is known as the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) Talmud (PT). In Babylon a Gemara was added to the Mishna approximately A.D. 500. Together they make up the better-known and much larger Babylonian Talmud (BT). The Talmud conssts of sixty-three "Tractates" arranged in six "Orders." The main problem invovled in evaluating Talmuding materials is to separate later accretions from earlier materials. All too often it appears that the Talmudic materials witness not to what actually took place in a previous period but to an idealized rendering of how things should have taken place if the later rabbinic understanding of the law had been in force.

The Talmud contains several references to Jesus. The most famous is found in _b. Sanhedrin_ 43a (BT):

On the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! - Ulla retorted: Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a _Mesith_ [enticer], concerning him Scripture says, _Neither shalt though spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?_ With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government for royalty [i.e., influential]. Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.

We find a number of parallels between this tradition and the Gospel accounts. Jesus' death is associated with Passover and occurs on the eve of the Passover (compare Jn 19:13). Indirectly his miracle-working activity is witnessed to by the claim that he worked sorcery (compare Mk 3:22, where Jesus' miracles are attributed to a demonic source). He is accused of apostasy, and although the penalty for this is "stoning," Jesus was not stoned but "hanged," that is, crucified. No mention is made of the Roman part in the trial of Jesus. But that is not surprising in that the concern of the Mishna is to explain the Jewish law, and in this repsect the role of Rome was irrelevant. There is present an acknowledgment that the leadership of Israel was involved in Jesus' death. Mention is made of Jesus' having had disciples, but only five are listed, and their names to do not make a great deal of sense (Matthai = Matthew; Nakai = Nicodemus?; Nezer = Nazarene?: Buni = Boanerges, the Sons of Thunder?; Todah = Thaddaeus?).

The question must be raised whether this material comes from oral traditions of those who were themselves eyewitnesses of the tiral or who had access to eyewitness reports of what took place. If so, these traditions would be extremely valuable. Most of the material, however, arose from later Jewish-Christian debates and appars to be apologetic in naure. for instance, the statement that for forty days a search was made for witnesses on Jesus' behalf looks like an apologetic on the part of rabbinic Judaism against the Christian claim that Jesus did not receive a fair trial. Thus we find that whereas this material is most helpful in the investigation of Judaism and the early church during the second through fifth centuries, it is less valuable for the study of the life of Jesus.

Several other refernces in the Talmud have been seen as referring to Jesus. But they are for the most part problematic in that they do not mention Jesus directly. The Jewish avoidance of using the name of heretics could explain this. The following passage may be counterapologetics to the Christian claim of the virginal conception.

Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the word]. A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! - R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. R. Papa observed: That is what men say, "She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters." (b. Sanhedrin 106a; compare also 106b)

Said R. Simeon B. 'Azzai: I found a roll of geneaological records in Jerusalem, and therein was written, "so-and-so is a [having been born] from [a forbidden union with] a married woman," which confirms the vew of R. Joshua ( b. Yebamot 49a)

This also brings to mind the claim of a man named Celsus as recorded in Origin (c. 248): "Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera" ( Contra Celsum 1.32). It is evident that this reference is an apologetic by the neo-platonist Celsus against the Christian claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin when she conceived him. There may even be a pun here. Whereas the Christians claimed that Jesus was conceived and born of a virgin (parthenos, the Greek term for virgin), opponents said, "No, not of a parthenos but of Panthera." By a simple reversal of the _r_ and _n_ they "discovered" the real father of Jesus and argued that Jesuss was illegitimate.

The references given above from the Tractates _Sanhedrin_ and _Yebamot_ may very well represent a similar attack on the Christian claim. Several arguments favor this interpretation. For one, although the name of the woman and child are not given, it is assumed that people would know to whom these sayings referred. Jesus would certainly have been a prime candidate in people's minds. Second, the reference to a carpenter fits well with the fact that Joseph and Jesus were carpeenters, even though it is not the husband of Mary but the adulterer who is so described. It may also be that the reference to Mary's being a descendant of princes and governors may be an allusion to the Gospel geneaologies in which we find such royal figures as David, Solomon and Zerubabbel (Mt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-27. It has also been argued that the name Balaam was seen by Jews as a type for Jesus. If so, the above passages are probably references to Jesus created as counterpropaganda against Christian claims. They are, however, secondary in nature and the result of later Jewish-Christian debate rather than contemporary, eyewitness reports."

Several passages dealing with the treatment of heresy have also been
[34]
suggested as possible allusions to Jesus even though his name is not present.

b. Berakot: "May our company not be like that of Elisha, from which issued Gehazi. _In our bread places_: may we produce no son or pupil who disgraces himself in public." One manuscript (M) adds to the end of this saying, "like the Nazarene."

b. Sanhedrin 103a. "Another interpretation: 'There shall no evil befall thee' - though wilt not be affrighted by nightmares and dread thoughts; 'neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling' - thou will not have a son or a disciple who publicly burns his food." The expression "to burn food" refers to accepting or propounding heresy.

Other possible allusions to Jesus or his teachings may be found in b. Sabbat; 116b (a possible reference to Mt 5:17) and _b. Sanhedrin 107b, where one manuscript tradition refers to "Jesus the Nazarene [who] practised magic and led Israel astray."

The key question that arises involves the origin of these rabbinicrabbinic materials are primarily valuable for providing information concerning second-, third- and fourth-century Judaism, and even here they must be read critically. Like the pagan sources, however, they provide little information for the historian seeking to construct a life of Jesus. references. The value of these passages would be greatly enhanced if they originated from contemporaries of Jesus who were eyewitnesses of the events they were reporting. This would be true even though they presented the side of Jesus' opponents. On several occasions, however, aspects of these accounts seem to be due less to eyewitness reports than to later Jewish intereaction with the teachings and claims of the early church. This is especially true with respect for such matters as the claim that a forty-day search for witnesses on Jesus' behalf preceded his trial and, if the accounts refer to Jesus, to his brith being due not to virginal conception but to adultery on the part of his mother. As a result, the

rabbinic materials are primarily valuable for providing information concerning second-, third- and fourth-century Judaism, and even here they must be read critically. Like the pagan sources, however, they provide little information for the historian seeking to construct a life of Jesus.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There is certainly nothing in the way of direct evidence to conclude that there was an historical Jesus, but given what we do have, I dare suggest that the likelihood of his existence is very, very high.

Consider some of the best third-party sources:
• Greco Roman historians mention either Jesus or his followers in the late first and early second centuries.

and finally...

The Greco-Roman world did not lack gods and goddesses. These are the deities of myth, who dwell in the heavens or in some mythical mountain to the north, and who are associated with the rhythms of the seasons. Occasionally these eternal, immortal gods are said to descend, or are sent from heaven to earth, for some important redemptive mission on behalf of humankind. Occasionally they can be identified with historical figures, for example, the identification of the Gnostic Redeemer with Christ in certain Gnostic circles. Essentially they are gods, not human beings.
But there were also human figures known from history and legend who were believed to be so endowed with divinity as to perform superhuman feats, to be "supermen." They could be offspring of divine-human unions, but what is most characteristic of them is their wisdom and special powers, including their ability to work miracles.Usually they were considered to be the great benefactors of humankind. In this category were all manner of kings, emperors, military conquerors, politicians, philosophers, physicians and healers, poets, and athletes. The notion of emperor worship, for example, was an adaptation of eastern beliefs about the divinity of the king or pharaoh. But western conquerors fostered such ideas on their marches eastward; in the eastern provinces the Roman emperor was often believed to be divine. At home, the Greeks and Romans cautiously tolerated such views as a means to political unity and stability, but in fact discouraged them. When Roman emperors claimed divine perogatives, they encountered stiff opposition, though it was customary to pay worthy emperors divine homage after they died. Also, majestic titles were often bestowed on the emperor (or demanded by some!) such as "Lord," "God," "Son of God," and "Savior." Titles of this sort were also given to Jesus.
Especially widespread was the notion of a hero or philosopher who was venerated for his ability to perform miracles or for his great wisdom, or both. Some modern scholars have called such a figure the "divine man.'' These tremendous abilities were believed to be a manifestation of deity, even if the figure was not an immortal god. Yet, it may be that there was also a special class of "divine men" who, it was believed, were rewarded with the status of immortality at death. One of the most famous was the itinerant Pythagorean philosopher Apollonius of Tyana (Asia Minor) who was said to have been sired by the Egyptian God Proteus, and to have gathered followers, taught, helped the poor, healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, and appeared to his followers after death to discourse on immortality. He lived through most of the first Christian century, and shortly after 217 CE a "Life" of him was written by Philostratus. There is no evidence that Philostratus drew on the gospels; thus, the lives of famous heroes raise the question whether there were any literary prototypes for the New Testament "gospel.''

So the question is...was there a man named Jesus and was he the man made famous in the NT?

Maybe....but I wouldnt bet much money on it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

...Of course you and I both know the line in the sand where actual proof of Jesus is skewed....and further, even if he did exist all that is attributed to him is even further distorted. The Jesus Seminar, for example, concluded that approximately 85% of the words and actions of Jesus as reported in the New Testament are not authentic.
Flatly borrowing lines from the New Testament cannot be taken at face value, the controversy regarding authenticity is too great. In saying that those who do use the NT as a guide to morality and understanding probably dont read or understand the document as its written.

How much do you know about the Jesus Seminar? There are certainly some very respectable scholars among them (Such as Chilton, Attridge, Borg, Armstrong, and Mack), but some of the best Jesus scholars were notoriously absent. Among them, Burt Ehrman, N.T. Wright, Craig A. Evans, Todd Klutz, Elaine Paigels, James Dunn, and the list goes on. The Seminar founders Robert Funk J.D. Crossan have been widely cirticized for their work in the field; Crossan in particular has been taken to task for some of his dating methods, which are very cledarly erroneous. The Seminar includes among its ranks Paul Verhoeven, a Hollywood film-maker who brought us such masterpieces as Showgirls and Basic Instinct. Also included was Barbara Thiering, who has become a very rich woman through the publication of her off-the-wall theories regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, but has become a pariah among Qumran specialists. Pardon me for not taking much of what the Seminar says or does very seriously, but they lack credibility.

Originally Posted by Cheese

There is nothing wrong with myths and fables as long as one views the parables for what they are. You can learn a great deal from the prose of the ancient.

I believe that a glaring problem in the work of hard-core atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens is their total lack of appreciation for myth. In light of how truly inaccessible the historical Jesus is, I have to think that this person is subservient in his importance to the myth that became Jesus Christ. Herein is one of the greatest dangers in adhering to a much too literal reading of Scripture: a failure to grasp the most important part of the faith, the myth of Jesus. I acknowledge the critical importance of attempting to uncover who the historical Jesus was, if only to provide substantiation for the legitimacy of the kind of myth that developed around him.

For example, the story of the adulterous woman in John 7:53–8:11 is certainly a late addition to the text. But the story accords well with a well established perception of Jesus character, and with his typical interaction with women. There is an element of "believable-ness" inherent in the story, and this makes it a legitimate representation of the kind of interaction that Jesus had with such people (I will discuss this in greater detail in my long overdue response to Photon below). Also, several of the parables which you find morally objectionable contain in them a social/political context which cannot be ignored (This is very much how the literalists would have us read Scripture: Ignore context and seek out the most "plain", "harmonious", and narrowly obvious interpretation), such as in Luke 19. The sermon on the Mount must be understood not as propositional truth, but as hyperbole. Your understanding of the saying from John 6 is quite in error, as it quite obviously is not an instruction not to work, but—in accordance with much of John's Gospel—teaches a hightened form of dualism which favours the "sprititual" over the "material". Again, hyperbole and exaggeration is our friend when reading John. It was a common form of rabbinical teaching in Jesus day, it only makes sense that we apply the same sort of understanding to Jesus own very rabbically conditioned statements.

The point is as follows. First and foremost: the Bible is a dangerous book, which requires very a careful and deliberate methodology in its reading. Perhaps this is why the early Church put such a priority on the inherent authority of the "rule of faith", and in the "apostolic teaching" that tended to supersede Scripture. Second, pabable, sapiential wisdom sayings, and apocalyptic discourse are all quite contrary to modern concepts of propositional truth. one cannot, nor should they merely assume that "because the Bible says" such-and-such, that this is the most accurate "meaning" of the text.

I hope that helps to clarify things.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

On Josephus...

The absence of the messianic elements in the Testimonium Flavium in the Arabic translation provide extremely good support to the existence of an earlier edition of the report that had later been tampered with. Leading expert and Jewish scholar Louis Feldman has argued very persuasively that the passage is genuine, but that it has been grossly amended.

It should also not come as any surprise that the Apostolic Fathers did not make mention of Josephus's account, as it was very likely really a very mundane account at the time. During Tertullian's and Justin Martyr's day, there was no real need to argue the existence of a man named Jesus, as there was really no reason to doubt that this man had lived and died in Palestine. What they devoted much of their own energies to was to arguing for the miraculous nature of Jesus, that he was in fact the messiah, and that he physically rose from the dead. Considering that these are all things that Josephus would have never believed, it is difficult to understand why the Apostolic Fathers would have ever found much value in his writings concerning Jesus.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

...the rabbinic materials are primarily valuable for providing information concerning second-, third- and fourth-century Judaism, and even here they must be read critically. Like the pagan sources, however, they provide little information for the historian seeking to construct a life of Jesus.

The problem with reading rabbinic materials critically is similar to that of attempting to gain an understanding of the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus life and death. Both the rabbinic and the Christian communities were largely oral, and the thousands upon thousands of rabbinic traditions floated around as spoken tractates for centuries before they were ever written down. Does this mean that such traditions were unreliable or inaccurate until changes in technology and custom provided for the formation of the Talmud and the Mishnah? Most scholars do not think so. Wading through the rabbinic texts is incredibly daunting, and it does not lend itself at all well to historical-critical methods. Much of it is fluid, non-linear, and most certainly not chronological. This is in large part why there has never been any serious historical-critical investigation of the rabbinic materials, and why they likely never will be. Dealing with oral traditions so long after the fact is always sketchy at best. But given what we do know about oral traditions, oral communities and how these things function, there is every reason to think that the rabbinic tractates as well as the Gospel accounts are founded upon decades and centuries of spoken narrative. It is how myths survived long before they were ever written down. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the distinction between "myth", "legend", "history" and "fact" would have been indistinguishable for most peoples in the ancient world. Mythology was a type of historiography, and this creates a great deal of frustration and confusion when it comes to determining what actually happened in the distant past.

[troutman]

Good posts Cheese and Text.

For the record, I think Dawkins and Harris both lean towards a historical Jesus.

[photon]

I wish I had more time to put into reading about this stuff.. Ehrman has been in my iPod lately though.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

I meant those are the things we THINK he taught through the writings we have today, but there's hardly anything from Jesus' time. Despite the supposed uproar he caused among the Jewish leaders, writings from that time are mostly silent about him.

I think that this is probably because the "uproar" in Jesus lifetime was somewhat muted. I had mentioned previously that I believed that the account of the triumphal entry was an idealized representation of a badly botched "coupe". A coupe in the sense that Jesus was causing problems for the reigning Temple priests, and he and his band of followers entered the Temple Mount with the intention of causing at least a scene. I furthermore believe that this was likely the catalyst in the desire on the part of the priests and Pharisees to have Jesus executed. Obviously, the event must have met with some very poor results, as Jewish historians are all silent about it. This is the sort of exaggeration that the Gospel writers suppied to Jesus life. Moments of minor significance nationally were blown extremely out of proportion in an effort to make Jesus a character who was larger than life.

Originally Posted by photon

I'm just asking do we really know what Jesus did teach, because while some Christians in the early church believed in Do unto others, other Christians believed in 3 gods, or 30 gods, or Jesus wasn't human, or Jesus was only human, or any number of other things.. And these beliefs came from writings by people who claimed to have known Jesus, just as the writings that make up the canon do.

The problem with placing many of the same Gnostic writings on the same plane of credibility as the canonical gospels is that they simply (outside of a few notable exceptions in the Secret Sayings of Thomas Didimus) do not meet the same criteria. The earliest of the Apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr all allude to a great deal of stability regarding the teachings of the Church. The vast majority of scholars are in agreement here: that the Gnostics were on the fringe of the Christian movement, and that they did not survive much past the third century attests to this.

No, we do not know "really" what Jesus taught, but we do have a pretty good idea. I think that if you polled all the experts they would likely agree wholeheartedly to the following: that Jesus taught of the coming arrival of the "Kingdom of God". His understanding of this event was of a time when his oppressors and opponents would suffer "judgement", while his followers and those whom the Temple establishment and the ruling classes oppressed would receive "justice". I have no doubt that much of what he taught could be classified as dualistic and apocalyptic, but that the above sentence permeated the majority of his sayings and deeds.

Originally Posted by photon

We do know that some portions of the existing canon were added as time went on perhaps to combat other writings and beliefs the majority (or the scribe) thought to be heretical. The story where the pharasies bringing the adulteress to Jesus and he tells them that whoever has no sin can cast the first stone for example was added long after John was written, for what purpose who knows. And that's a pretty key phrase and point of doctrine for Christians.

The reason it was added and the reason it remained for so long was because it fit very well with the prevailing presentation of the rest of the Jesus narratives. This is what Scot McKnight has to say about the pericope in John:

"Although most scholars regard the passage as an addition to the text of the Fourth Gospel, the story of the woman caught in adultery and then forgiven by Jesus did and is consistent with his association with prostitutes (Matt 21:28–32). Jesus position on divorce shows mercy toward women (Mark 10:1–12; Matt 5:31–32). His treatment of women, though not explicitly prescribed for his followers, is a natural effect of what he thought about God, about the advent of the Kingdom, and about the new community he was establishing for Israel."

Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge, Mass.: Eerdmans, 1999) 222.

[photon]

Cool, I appreciate you taking the time to talk about that. Like I said I wish I had more time to study this stuff, it's not simple stuff for sure.

Heh, most Christians I know would probably call me a heretic just for studying this stuff.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...most Christians I know would probably call me a heretic just for studying this stuff.

You are most certainly not alone. I was extremely appreciative of one of the pastors at my church, who recently assured me that my "brand of heresy" would be tolerated. I think I had also mentioned here that when we had friends over for dinner the other evening, they practically balked when I hinted that I *gasp* "actually believe" the scientists about evolution.

[driveway]

Really interesting information Text & Cheese. For myself, I realized a long time ago that it would not be possible for me to be a Christian as I find myself unable to agree with the fundamental tenet of the faith: that humans are sinners and in need of salvation. I find the idea of an all-knowing all-creating God incompatible with the idea of free-will. If one exists, I don't think the other can, which - to my mind - absolves us of the notion of sin.

This is not to say I don't believe in morality. In fact, I find the idea of an entirely human-created morality more inspiring than the idea of a morality based on the perfection of a creator god. If we, without benefit of an example of purity, are still capable of - not only creating - but actually living by a set of rules which we agree to be to the benefit of all, even if they may not be to the benefit of the individual, is a greater achievement and speaks more to the potential of humanity than people agreeing to follow a code of ethics which have been dictated from on high and carry the threat of punishment.

[Ransacko]

Originally Posted by troutman

Third-party evidence (hearsay), (and evidence that is not contemporary) is hugely unreliable. It is not admissible in a court of law for good reason.

The "peasant from Galilee" is a common archetype in many world mythologies. So are virgin births, miracles and resurrections.

This does not have to diminish the Christian message - it is still important, whether Jesus lived or not. I don't think we can answer that question with any certainty. It is fair as Text has done, to assign a probability to it.

Third-Party evidence is not admissible in CRIMINAL court, however, it is more then relevant in Civil proceedings. The very idea that the parol evidence rule exists is to solidify the idea that Third-party evidence holds some merit. In civil proceeding where decisions are made based on a balance of scale rather than without reasonable doubt, the all so infamous hearsay is just another piece of evidence that goes some way to establishing evidence for one side or the other.

Basing your entire perception on the finite spectrum of criminal law is foolhardy and one perception someone schooled in the annals of the judiciary should not be making.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Ransacko

Third-Party evidence is not admissible in CRIMINAL court, however, it is more then relevant in Civil proceedings. The very idea that the parol evidence rule exists is to solidify the idea that Third-party evidence holds some merit. In civil proceeding where decisions are made based on a balance of scale rather than without reasonable doubt, the all so infamous hearsay is just another piece of evidence that goes some way to establishing evidence for one side or the other.

Basing your entire perception on the finite spectrum of criminal law is foolhardy and one perception someone schooled in the annals of the judiciary should not be making.

Is it foolhardy to make numerous spelling and factual mistakes when trying to look smart?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay...ted_States_law

With few exceptions, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States.
Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court on the stand where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined.


Hearsay evidence, if permitted in a civil proceeding, should be given little weight in most cases. Especially multiple third party, non-contemporaneus hearsay.

Ex. Civil Evidence Act, UK:

http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1995Civil_EvidenceAct.shtml
(1) In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.
(2) Regard may be had, in particular, to the following -

• (a) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness;
  (b) whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matter stated;
  (c) whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay;
  (d) whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters;
  (e) whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another for a particular purpose; (f) whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight.

The parol evidence rule is specific to the law of contract:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole_evidence_rule

http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/referen...ence_app_e.htm

Written or oral statements, or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceeding in which it is offered, are inadmissible, if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein.

Hearsay evidence is thought to be generally untrustworthy

Hearsay evidence may be admitted where its admission is necessary to prove a fact in issue and the evidence is reliable.3
"The criterion of "reliability" -- or, in Wigmore's terminology, the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness -- is a function of the circumstances under which the statement in question was made. If a statement sought to be adduced by way of hearsay evidence is made under circumstances which substantially negate the possibility that the declarant was untruthful or mistaken, the hearsay evidence may be said to be "reliable", i.e., a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness is established."4

[Textcritic]

Fortunately, matters of faith and religious experience will never be—nor should they be—held to the same scrutiny as criminal or civil law.

[Ransacko]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is it foolhardy to make numerous spelling and factual mistakes when trying to look smart?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay...ted_States_law

With few exceptions, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States.
Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court on the stand where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined.


Hearsay evidence, if permitted in a civil proceeding, should be given little weight in most cases. Especially multiple third party, non-contemporaneus hearsay.

Ex. Civil Evidence Act, UK:

http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1995Civil_EvidenceAct.shtml
(1) In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.
(2) Regard may be had, in particular, to the following -

• (a) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness;
  (b) whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matter stated;
  (c) whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay;
  (d) whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters;
  (e) whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another for a particular purpose; (f) whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight.

The parol evidence rule is specific to the law of contract:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parole_evidence_rule

http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/referen...ence_app_e.htm

Written or oral statements, or communicative conduct made by persons otherwise than in testimony at the proceeding in which it is offered, are inadmissible, if such statements or conduct are tendered either as proof of their truth or as proof of assertions implicit therein.

Hearsay evidence is thought to be generally untrustworthy

Hearsay evidence may be admitted where its admission is necessary to prove a fact in issue and the evidence is reliable.3
"The criterion of "reliability" -- or, in Wigmore's terminology, the circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness -- is a function of the circumstances under which the statement in question was made. If a statement sought to be adduced by way of hearsay evidence is made under circumstances which substantially negate the possibility that the declarant was untruthful or mistaken, the hearsay evidence may be said to be "reliable", i.e., a circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness is established."4

I don't know what's more amusing, you using Wikipedia to attempt to solidify your stance or the fact that you claim to be of the legal school of thought. First off, Little does not equate to none. Secondly the very idea you attempt to draw a tenuous link between the legal system and the weight of anthropological evidence is incredibly humorous. Give yourself a pat on the back, you've earned the angst-filled, angry immature pseudo-intellectual achievement.

Go continue spouting your wiki-borne knowledge to the masses, and if you truly belong to the law profession in Canada, go take a look at General Tire Canada INC. v. Aylwards LTD. Don't forget since you are a professional your "opinion" does in fact equate to advice. Rational individuals would do better for themselves than to resort to spouting idealogical crap from the mouth of the internet's forum of idiots.

Back up your claims with some relevant legal posturing rather than utilizing oft used argument of how what you claim to be "Hearsay" as entirely unimportant.

But I will congratulate you on one thing, you have made me laugh at how stupid internet "experts" can claim to be. You sir typify the very reason why democracy is so riddled with flaws.

Congrats!