Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Hey Jude, Your Private Parts Are "Monstrously Huge and Loathsome to Behold"
An excellent New Yorker piece by Joan Acocella deflates the fad for non-canonical gospels that occasionally turn up around Asia Minor and North Africa. In this case, it's the "Gospel of Judas," which was found in Egypt in 1978 and has been firing the imaginations of reform-minded biblical scholars ever since.
An English translation of the Gospel of Judas appeared in 2006, and in addition to a promise from Jesus that nobody will go to Heaven, it contains a cockamamie cosmology with "aeons," "luminaries," demiurges, and maybe Xenu and a few thetans. Nevertheless, experts like Gnostic scholar Elaine Pagels continue to make claims about what Acocella calls the "upbeat character" of the text:
What use could this bizarre document be to modern Christians? Plenty. Many American religious thinkers are more liberal than their churches. They wish that Christianity were more open-not a stone wall of doctrine. To these people, the Gospel of Judas was a gift. As with the other Gnostic gospels, its mere existence showed that there was no such thing as fixed doctrine, or that there wasn't at the beginning.
The big promise is that Gnostic texts
will take some of the shine off the religious belief that Jews are
collectively responsible for the death of Jesus (and Acocella gives
due attention to the never-fascinating insight that the betrayal
should make Judas a hero, because it led to the salvation, and so
on). Given how effective non-religious anti-Semitism turned out to
be in the twentieth century, it seems mighty wishful to think
tweaking bible stories will make a big difference. Most of the
major Christian churches have made efforts to condemn anti-Semitism
-- and as only Mel Gibson and the Rev. Fred Phelps are willing to admit, they do
so in defiance of their own core documents.
If liberal scholars want to argue from ancient texts, they should take the argument that's right in plain sight: There is no documentary evidence that Jesus H. Christ existed at all. The first gospel was written decades after the alleged fact, and the first independent mentions of the big guy appear about a century later. And the Romans were pretty good record keepers. By these historical standards, there is more evidence today for the existence of Batman than there is for the existence of Gen. Terry de la Mesa Allen, New Jersey Gov. Brendan Byrne, or Reason writer Tim Cavanaugh. The Gnostic texts have a modern analogue: fan fiction in which Kirk and Picard team up to stop a Ferengi bank heist or something. They're contentious for devotees, intriguing for sociologists, and meaningless as evidence one way or another.
And if you want to read a great meditation on the legitimately weird and interesting early history of Christianity, dig Flaubert's Temptation of Saint Anthony.
ev|8.12.09 @ 1:55AM|#
Hey Tim, I've been noticing the awkward timing of your posts.
Are you in Europe or in some other time zone far removed from
Central Standard time? Maybe you're a raging alcoholic, NTTAWWT, I
don't know. You seem to regularly post at times that others would
consider weird.
This happy little rock lives...right here.
Elemenope|8.12.09 @ 2:14AM|#
it contains a cockamamie cosmology
Yes, the transubstantiation of bread into cosmic Jewish zombie
flesh is so much more sensible.
But anyway, it sounds generally consistent with the other Gnostic
texts from the same period, traces of which still remain in the
orthodox Bible (try as was done to expunge them), and the ideas
therein, especially the neo-Platonist mysticism, had a deep
influence on the development of early Christianity. To call this
cosmology cockamamie is to call one of the intellectual progenitors
of Christianity cockamamie. And while that may be apt in a general
sense, it is not *especially* so, certainly not any more than any
other particular religious cosmology.
Acocella gives due attention to the never-fascinating insight
that the betrayal should make Judas a hero
Someone is a little cynical, methinks. "never-fascinating"? I
imagine the first time a person thinks a little about it, it is at
least an intriguing notion.
Neu Mejican|8.12.09 @ 2:41AM|#
By these historical standards, there is more evidence today
for the existence of Batman than there is for the existence of Gen.
Terry de la Mesa Allen, New Jersey Gov. Brendan Byrne, or Reason
writer Tim Cavanaugh.
What an odd phrasing for your argument.
FWIW, I think you over sell the historical doubt here a bit. The
records are about as good as would be expected. On par with, lets
say, Shakespeare if we adjust for the increased distance into the
past. The Romans were good record keepers, but most of those
records did not survive to the modern age.
Fist of Etiquette|8.12.09 @ 6:44AM|#
Why drag Trek into this???
But that was some good fanfic. Picard told the crew one of
them will betray him, and Worf immediately slit Riker's
throat.
"Apologies, Captain. I thought you said, 'Number One, you will
betray me.'"
...and so on.
MJ|8.12.09 @ 6:49AM|#
"Many American religious thinkers are more liberal than their
churches. They wish that Christianity were more open-not a stone
wall of doctrine."
That there were doctrinal disputes in the early Church are well
known if one is aware of how and why the Council of Nicea happened.
Why should the discovery of one of the rejected scriptures
necessarly reopen th debate?
Furthermore, it is odd that "liberal" theologians are interested in
Gnostic texts. By everything I've read, the Gnostics were morally
strict and prone to ascetism and prudery than modern Christians as
the Gnostics believd the world was irredeemably corrupt by nature.
What we actually got historically was the easygoing version of
Christianity.
Mad Max|8.12.09 @ 7:18AM|#
SCENE: THE HEADQUARTERS OF DECIUS COMICUS, ANCIENT ROMAN PUBLIC
RELATIONS CONSULTANT. TWO SINISTER-LOOKING JEWISH CLIENTS ARE
TALKING TO DECIUS.
PAUL: Here's the deal, Decius - we want to create a new religion, a
religion for which people all over the Roman Empire will be willing
to die, but we don't have a good founder figure. We were hoping
that you could use your creativity to make up a founder for our
religion.
PETER: We were both impressed by your work on the superheroes
Battus Manus and Homo Superbus. We want you to create a fictional
character like that, only we're going to try and convince the world
the guy really existed.
PAUL:
DECIUS: A tall order, indeed. How about this: I'll invent a great
religious leader who came to Rome to preach justice and
righteousness. His enemies killed him by the sword, but he came
back to life again.
PAUL: That's interesting, but we'd like to make a couple changes.
First, instead of having our founder come to Rome, have him live
out his entire life exclusively in the Jewish lands on the east of
the Mediterranean (except for a side-trip to Egypt). I mean, why
would we want to have him come to Rome to preach
righteousness?
DECIUS: Uh, because Rome is the capital of the world?
PETER: Nah, it would be more authentic if he spent all his time in
our neck of the woods. It's an obscure area, and your Roman
officials often kill locals accused of sedition, so it will seem
more plausible that he died there.
PAUL: And another thing - instead of having him die a hero's death
by the sword, why not have him crucified?
DECIUS: But that's a disgraceful and ignominious punishment! Dying
by the sword is much more honorable than getting tortured and
hanged like a common criminal! That would be a major
stumbling-block in trying to win converts!
PETER: True, but we were thinking that, a few centuries down the
road, a death by crucifixion would make for some cool
artwork.
PAUL: And we don't want a wretched Jew to die any kind of honorable
death, even in fantasy.
DECIUS: But, *you're* Jewish.
PETER: Yeah, but we're self-hating, like Woody Allen.
DECIUS: Very well, then. And since you want to persuade people that
this guy is real, I'll bribe a Jewish historian in town - Josephus
by name - to mention your guy in that history of the Jewish Wars
he's working on, so as to delude the world into thinking your guy
existed. I'll also put out the word to pagan critics of your
religion that they should avoid insinuating that he didn't exist -
their denunciations should focus on other issues.
cmace|8.12.09 @ 7:24AM|#
The Three Great Religions all have this problem. They paint
themselves into a corner with their Books.
Also, claiming there's only one god doesn't leave much weasel
room.
Abdul|8.12.09 @ 7:50AM|#
While St. Paul never knew Jesus personally, his letters show
that he met with and corresponded with people who did. His letters
were also written before the first Gospel. Interestingly, Paul
never seems to need to rebut arguments that Jesus had never
existed. I would guess this argument was never made because in
Pauls' time, numerous eye-witnesses could testify to Jesus's birth
and death. Instead, all of Paul's arguments center around what
Jesus meant, not whether he existed.
While there is no proof positive that Jesus existed, that's pretty
good documentary evidence from 200 years ago from a society that
had about 15% literacy.
<strike>strike through</strike|8.12.09 @ 7:52AM|#
God is a skinny half-black fellow who makes speeches and is worshipped by millions.
Other Matt|8.12.09 @ 8:06AM|#
"God is a skinny half-black fellow who makes speeches and is worshipped by millions."-Really? Damn, I thought he was just a canonized saint.
|8.12.09 @ 8:26AM|#
"There is no documentary evidence that Jesus H. Christ existed
at all."
There is no documentary evidence that Alexander the Great existed
at all. We have a few semi-mythical biographies, but they are about
as much evidence as the Iliad is of Helen's existence. Yet, we know
that Alexander existed, not because we have his tax returns, but
because there are Greek temples in India. We know he existed by his
effect on the world around him.
It is the same reason why know Jesus existed. To believe otherwise
is to beleive that a group of people for no apparent reason risked
their lives (starting new religions was a very dangerous endeavor
in 1st Century Judea) by making up the existence of a person and
starting a religion. And in fact, some of those people were willing
to die for this person that at least the initial followers had to
have known didn't exist. Then there is the case of Paul. Here is
Paul a Roman citizen and a good Jew sent down to look into the
newest crazy cult in Palestine. He goes down and tortures a few
people. And then on the basis of an invented person, who was
supposed to have lived within a generation of him, renounces his
religion and starts wandering around the Roman world essentially
begging to be crucified. Now maybe Paul just went off the rails and
was clinically insane. But his letters indicate that he was not
only sane but extremely intelligent and a wonderful writer.
Now, that doesn't mean that Jesus was the son of God. It doesn't
even mean that he claimed to be the son of God. That claim could
have been invented later by followers or the result of his
followers misinterpreting what he said. But, I think it is pretty
solid evidence that there was a historical Jesus.
|8.12.09 @ 8:36AM|#
Also, what documentary evidence do we have about anyone in First Century Palistine? We have some on Harrod. We have some on Pilot. We know Titus burned the place down. We have Josephus who seems pretty acurate, but he only talks about the Jewish revolt. Most people disapear into time. I dare say two thousand years from now we will have no documentary evidence that Tim Cavenaugh ever existed.
!</ </a>|8.12.09 @ 8:40AM|#
John,
I dare say two thousand years from now we will have no
documentary evidence that Tim Cavenaugh ever existed.
Yes we will. I am making a Tim Cavenaugh time capsule with a pure
indestructium case.
Tim,
When you finish writing want to see if this cross fits?
|8.12.09 @ 8:42AM|#
"I'll bribe a Jewish historian in town - Josephus by name - to
mention your guy in that history of the Jewish Wars he's working
on, so as to delude the world into thinking your guy existed. I'll
also put out the word to pagan critics of your religion that they
should avoid insinuating that he didn't exist - their denunciations
should focus on other issues."
No reason to bribe Josephus. We can just get our monks to add it in
later during transcription.
Guy_Smiley|8.12.09 @ 9:07AM|#
There is no documentary evidence that Jesus H. Christ
existed at all.
Yes, there is no documentary evidence, except for thousands of New
Testament manuscripts, more numerous and better preserved than any
other ancient documents, that through comparison can reconstruct
the original autographs with 95% accuracy, thereby giving multiple
accounts, written by eye witnesses or within the life span of (and
mentioning) eye witnesses.
I think that the "no proof for Jesus" thing is like Obama being a
"secret Muslim". It's absurd, but opponents just like the way it
feels coming out of their mouths.
<strike>strike through</strike|8.12.09 @ 9:08AM|#
John | August 12, 2009, 8:26am | #
"There is no documentary evidence that Jesus H. Christ existed at
all."
There is no documentary evidence that Alexander the Great existed
at all.
John, your arguments are equally mythical.
|8.12.09 @ 9:09AM|#
One other thing Tim. Consider Helen and the Trojan War. Now we
think that the Trojan war, if it happened, happened sometime around
1200 BC. But, we don't know that it ever happened at all let alone
that there was such a person as Helen. Now imagine if somewhere in
Eastern Turkey, they dug up a tablet and some scrolls that could be
positively dated to say 1100 BC. And these tablets and scrolls talk
about a war between the Greeks and the Trojans over a beautiful
Greek Queen named Helen and how the war ended with Troy being
sacked. It would be the archeological find of the century. Assuming
it was legit and from the era, the debate over whether there was a
Helen and a Trojan War would be over.
Now consider Jesus. We have tons of sources from a few years after
his death that talk about him. We have Tacitus talking about his
dingbat followers getting killed in the Coliseum in 2nd Century
Rome. Note also that Tacitus never doubts the existence of Jesus.
He says that these morons keep following the guy even though the
Romans killed him. It is too anti-Christian to have been added in
later. And Tacitus is too good of a source to be dismissed.
Jesus is dismissed because we have "no documentary evidence". Yet,
if we had anything close to the evidence on any other mythical
historical figure that we have on Jesus, their existence would
never be doubted.
|8.12.09 @ 9:11AM|#
"There is no documentary evidence that Jesus H. Christ existed
at all."
There is no documentary evidence that Alexander the Great existed
at all.
John, your arguments are equally mythical."
Oh really? What is the contemparary documentary evidence of
Alexander's existence? Name all of the contemporary documents that
say his name.
Libertarian Atheist|8.12.09 @ 9:13AM|#
Guy,
You are just a fundie of dubious intellectual credentials. Anyone
who things there was ever such a person as Jesus might as well
believe in invisible green unicorns. So there.
Guy Smiley|8.12.09 @ 9:18AM|#
And when I say New Testament documents, I mean the canonical
Gospels.
The Gnostics were a cult that flourished a hundred years after the
writing of the original Gospels, that forged new Christian gospels
in order to promote their own screwy ideas.
That is why the early Church Fathers rejected them; it was clear at
the time to them that they were fakes.
In fact, before people started finding Gnostic gospels everywhere,
the only information we had about Gnosticism was the description of
it from Saint Irenaeus, who was denouncing it as a heresy in the
2nd Century.
Warty|8.12.09 @ 9:18AM|#
Well, John, Alexander did found a bunch of cities named after himself, and presumably put up some statues or something with his name inscribed on them.
Libertarian Atheist|8.12.09 @ 9:19AM|#
he other thing is that oral traditions have proven to be much
more accurate than previously thought. The Slavs have this oral
tradition of epic poems. Some of them are longer than the Iliad.
They talk about the wars with the Muslims and are in some cases
over 700 years old. In the 1930s, some cultural anthropologists
studied these epics. The epics talk about real historical events
like the battle of Kosovo that we have evidence from other sources
telling us what happened. The epics were found to be incredibly
consistent with other, known reliable sources.
There really is wisdom of crowds. We see that now with Wikipedia.
If there is common knowledge of an event, you can't just make up
new facts and not have people call you on it. For this reason, oral
traditions are much more records than we previously thought they
were.
Given that fact, it would have been very difficult for an oral
tradition to arise in 1st Century Palestine about a completely
fictitious person.
|8.12.09 @ 9:21AM|#
"Well, John, Alexander did found a bunch of cities named after
himself, and presumably put up some statues or something with his
name inscribed on them"
ABsolutely he did. That is why we know he existed. We know he
existed because there was the huge Greek empire that came about at
that time. But we don't he existed because we have all these
contemporary documents that reference him. All we have of those are
some coins and some mythical biographies. We know he existed
because of his effect. The same we know Jesus existed because we
have huge religous movement that came from him.
What evidence do we have of the Budda's existence? I doubt there is
much. Yet, no one seems to doubt his existence.
|8.12.09 @ 9:34AM|#
Most of the major Christian churches have made efforts to condemn anti-Semitism -- and as only Mel Gibson and the Rev. Fred Phelps are willing to admit, they do so in defiance of their own core documents.
Ah, the always persuasive, "tell other people what their own core
documents mean" argument. Next up, "most of the major libertarian
and Randian figures have claimed that they don't hate the poor and
foreigners -- and as only LoneWacko and the Dr. Ron Paul are
willing to admit, they do so in defiance of their own core
doucments."
!</ </a>|8.12.09 @ 9:34AM|#
Wasn't Jesus' real name Brian of the Judaen People's
Front?
He told the Romans to go home.
!</ </a>|8.12.09 @ 9:36AM|#
Well, John, Alexander did found a bunch of cities named
after himself, and presumably put up some statues or something with
his name inscribed on them.
So he was the Stalin of his day, or Sen. Byrd.
|8.12.09 @ 9:42AM|#
Most of the major Christian churches have made efforts to
condemn anti-Semitism -- and as only Mel Gibson and the Rev. Fred
Phelps are willing to admit, they do so in defiance of their own
core documents.
I've never seen any indication that Fred Phelps and the Westboro
Baptist Church was anti-Semitic. I know it's convenient to assume
that haters just hate everyone, but everything I've ever seen
indicated that they just concentrated their bile on gay-bashing.
(Fred Phelps, by the way, used to be a civil rights lawyer, and to
the best of my knowledge never repudiated that part of his
biography. It wouldn't surprise he if he actually turned out to be
philo-Semitic--as long as we're talking about straight Jews, of
course.)
|8.12.09 @ 9:42AM|#
If that women in the picture would lose the two signs that mention Jesus, she could probably get a job at Huffpost or the BBC.
Alan|8.12.09 @ 9:43AM|#
I'll bribe a Jewish historian in town - Josephus by name -
to mention your guy in that history of the Jewish Wars he's working
on
Without actually checking the texts themselves, I believe Josephus
mentioned Jesus (the Christ) in his Antiquities of the
Jews rather than in The Jewish Wars.
|8.12.09 @ 9:44AM|#
"I've never seen any indication that Fred Phelps and the
Westboro Baptist Church was anti-Semitic."
The Westboro Baptist Church is also made up primarily of members of
Phelps' lunatic family and is mostly a money making enterprise for
Fred Phelps. If Phelps is a religous figure, then Bernie Madoff is
an investment banker.
DJF|8.12.09 @ 9:44AM|#
If Christians are suppose to change their bible in order to remove parts which some consider anti-Semitic when will the Jews change their bible to remove parts which some consider anti-Goyim?
|8.12.09 @ 9:46AM|#
"Without actually checking the texts themselves, I believe
Josephus mentioned Jesus (the Christ) in his Antiquities of the
Jews rather than in The Jewish Wars."
You are correct. And it is more than likely apocryphal. Jospephus
never liked messiah figures. He was never known to be a Christian.
Then all of the sudden he drops this two sentence aside about Jesus
being the son of God. It is just too good to be true. Chances are
very high that that passage was added in later by a monk with a big
imagination. Maybe not, but probably so.
|8.12.09 @ 9:46AM|#
John:
Your arguments would appear a lot more sound and intelligent if you
could learn how to spell "Palestine," "Herod," "Pilate," and
"Buddha." One typo I could understand, but seriously, your posts
look like someone hacked into them and sabotaged your spelling just
to make you look ignorant.
|8.12.09 @ 9:48AM|#
If Christians are suppose to change their bible in order to
remove parts which some consider anti-Semitic when will the Jews
change their bible to remove parts which some consider
anti-Goyim?
I think the analog to "anti-Semitic" would be "anti-goyische."
T|8.12.09 @ 9:50AM|#
Also, claiming there's only one god doesn't leave much
weasel room.
The Bible actually acknowledges the existence of other gods in the
old testament. However, they aren't that which are, so the OT God
is better. Or something.
|8.12.09 @ 9:51AM|#
Everyone has a block Seamus. Some people can't do long division. I can do that just fine. For whatever reason spelling has always been my downfall. I am the world's worst at cross word puzzles. I can do math puzzles. I can do trivia. I can do all sorts of intellectual gymnastics. But I would be lucky to finish a TV Guide crossword puzzle. The neurons just don't connect.
|8.12.09 @ 9:56AM|#
The Bible actually acknowledges the existence of other gods
in the old testament. However, they aren't that which are, so the
OT God is better. Or something.
I think it refers to them as "false gods" - which is to say it
stops short of denying their existence - just their god-status. The
christian is left to conclude that worshipping baal is not a
complete waste of time, but worshipping yahweh would be a better
use of ones goats.
Cha Cha Simmons|8.12.09 @ 9:56AM|#
Anyone who denies the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is a buffoon ... his divinity is, as always and forever more will be, up for debate.
|8.12.09 @ 9:57AM|#
The Gospel of Judas, The Bible, the Koran, The Gita.
Whatever.
The letter killeth, its the spirit within that giveth life.
There is no truth in the flesh world, whether its food, land,
security, or the pages of a so-called holy book.
April DeConick has a differing view on the Gospel of Judas. Elaine
Pagels is not my Pope.
Read Bruce Chilton's critique of Pagels.
|8.12.09 @ 9:59AM|#
"The Bible actually acknowledges the existence of other gods in
the old testament. However, they aren't that which are, so the OT
God is better. Or something."
The idea of God in the old Testament evolves. But I think you have
to divide God as he reveals himself to the Jews from God as he is.
The book begins with God creating the universe from nothing. That
would seem to preclude their being other Gods.
But then, God talks to Abraham and he seems to be just another God
promising to protect Abraham and his family. God seems like just
another God in Exodus, albeit one that can kick the Egyptian God's
ass. The turning point for God is generally considered when he
tells Moses "I am that I am" meaning that he is just God and by
implication "The God". But the Jews don't fully get it. Thus, they
worship the Golden Calf. When he appears to them they pee their
pants and ask Moses to go tell him never to appear again. And God
has to tell them "hold no Gods before me". And then he acts like
your typical avenging God of the era and slaps the Jews around for
misbehaving and smites the hell out of their enemies. (Which he
still does BTW. if you don't believe me, go ask the Germans and ask
them how killing 6 million Jews worked out for them in the
end.)
Gradually through the old testament people start to get the idea
that God is the only God and is something very different from the
"gods" other cultures are worshiping. Depending on whether you are
a believer or not, that is either the Jews becoming more
sophisticated in their metaphysics or it is God slowly revealing
himself in a way people at the time can understand.
Space Fiend|8.12.09 @ 10:03AM|#
I don't know what Christians are expected to provide about a
Roman subject in 1st century Palestine who lived his entire life in
dire poverty, bearing an extremely common name.
You couldn't even prove today whether a particular "John Smith"
lived in a slum in 1900 New York City, so how are you supposed to
prove a specific "Yeshua bar Yosef" lived in 1st century Jerusalem,
especially when he is claimed to have died in his early 30s?
If having a cult built around your memory automatically
disqualifies anyone from being "real", you have to also get rid of
the Pharaohs, all the Roman Emperors, the Japanese Emperors, and
thousands more historical people.
Space Fiend|8.12.09 @ 10:08AM|#
Inb4 correction: Yes, I know Jesus didn't live in Jerusalem, just died there. My mistake.
Fred|8.12.09 @ 10:13AM|#
Tim -- Please stick to things you know. Your re-hashing of the "documentary evidence" is one-sided and incomplete at best.
EJM|8.12.09 @ 10:21AM|#
I don't have time right now to do anything more than plug James Patrick Holding's site (especially "The Impossible Faith") and Glenn Miller's site.
|8.12.09 @ 10:31AM|#
There is no documentary evidence that Jesus H. Christ
existed at all.
So, Tim, since all we have is second- and third-hand evidence that
Jesus existed and no primary source documentation, can I take it
that you are also taking the position that Barack Obama's birth in
Hawaii is also unproven? After all, we have nothing but second- and
third-hand evidence of that, either.
|8.12.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Oh really? What is the contemparary documentary evidence of Alexander's existence? Name all of the contemporary documents that say his name.
The writings of Steve Harris, and the musical legends of Bruce
Dickinson, Nicko McBrain and co.
It is quite well-documented.
Oh, you meant contemporary to ALEXANDER.
|8.12.09 @ 10:59AM|#
Tomon19,
Maybe you have a point. That is how I know that there was a Charge
of the Light Brigade.
highnumber|8.12.09 @ 11:09AM|#
if you don't believe me, go ask the Germans and ask them how
killing 6 million Jews worked out for them in the end.
65 years later, they are one of the most properous countries in the
world. All things considered, if that's Yahweh's revenge, his
smiting ain't what it used to be.
|8.12.09 @ 11:11AM|#
It's a simple fact that there is no secular evidence that Jesus ever existed. And even if a specific person existed about whom the fables are told, he most certainly wasn't magical and didn't come back from the dead. Most likely there is more false than true about Jesus, since the myths surrounding him can be found pretty much verbatim in more ancient myths that go back to the beginning of civilization.
|8.12.09 @ 11:15AM|#
John,
Your point about Buddha would have a point if there wasn't already
doubt about the existence of Buddha and the accuracy of his
biography, as well.
Also, re: Alexander the Great, while the majority of the primary
sources are lost, there are a number of secondary sources, from
contemporaries, that reference the originals.
If you use the NT and influence as your evidence, you may as well
say Romulus and Remus are real. After all, their texts and the city
of Rome live on today.
RC,
The problem isn't just that there aren't primary sources. There
also aren't contemporary secondary sources either. The only
secondary sources come well after his death. If the only mentions
of Barack Obama's birth and life came in 2095, yeah, we could doubt
his birth as well.
|8.12.09 @ 11:18AM|#
6"5 years later, they are one of the most properous countries in
the world. All things considered, if that's Yahweh's revenge, his
smiting ain't what it used to be."
Of course they had entire country flattened by area bombing, their
country occupied and divided by their worst enemies, the eastern
half of their country turned into a socialist authoritarian prison
locking up a good part of the population for the better part of
thirty years, lost an entire generation of their best and brightest
to the war and left those who survived with a generational sense of
guilt.
The fact that Germany is still there and prosperous says a lot more
about how tough, smart and resilient the Germans are than it does
about the wrath of God.
|8.12.09 @ 11:18AM|#
"I don't have time right now to do anything more than plug James
Patrick Holding's site (especially "The Impossible Faith") and
Glenn Miller's site."
That book has been throughly answered with Richard Carrier's "Not
the Impossible Faith".
|8.12.09 @ 11:20AM|#
Mo, I'm not doubting His birth (er, Obama's that is. Hard to
keep the Messiahs straight these days).
I'm just pointing out that the criticisms levelled at the
documentary evidence for JC seem to apply to the documentary
evidence for Obama being born in Hawaii.
You raise a valid point, one that can be answered by pointing out
that the passage of time and the lack of record-keeping would lead
one to expect a lack of contemporaneous documentation for a man who
lived a short life in a distant province of Rome.
By contrast, the fact that we live in a heavily documented society
and we are talking about an event that happened less than 50 years
ago makes the lack of primary documentation for Barack's birth in
Hawaii rather striking.
Nemo|8.12.09 @ 11:24AM|#
I can't wait to read the next installment of What's Silently Killing Tim Cavanaugh This Week
|8.12.09 @ 11:27AM|#
If you acknowledge that Jesus existed, the camel's nose is in
the tent.
I also deny the historical existence of Mohammed, for the
record.
Buddha? A folk legend.
Confucius? A collection of folk sayings was attributed to the
generic "grandfather" that was given a generic name. It's like
saying "John Bull says such-and-such" about England.
L. Ron Hubbard? Didn't happen. He was actually a pen name for the
amazingly prolific Heinlein. A "Richard Bachmann", if you
will.
You people who fell for the "official" story are all dupes.
|8.12.09 @ 11:28AM|#
R C Dean,
So the birth certificate and newspaper announcements aren't good
enough for you? Seems like they should be since the question isn't
truly all that important, except to people who are looking for any
excuse no matter how lame to engage in another coup against a
Democratic president. Too bad he doesn't seem to be a fan of
extramarital blow jobs.
|8.12.09 @ 11:29AM|#
Not at all. The new testament was a writing down of an existing oral tradition. We know that oral traditions much older than the Christian oral tradition of the time are in fact quite accurate. We also know; see Tacitus, that there are reliable accounts of Christians pretty quickly after the death of Christ. As Abdul pointed out above, none of the NT bothers to argue the existence of Jesus. It is taken as a given fact. Further, none of the pagan critics of Christianity at the time, and there were many ever argue that Jesus didn't exist. Why for example doesn't someone like Porphyry, who was a wicked smart writer and thinker, make the obvious argument that Jesus didn't even exist? The reason is that there was no doubt in the 3rd Century AD that Jesus existed. This idea that there never was a Jesus seems to be an invention of modern Atheists. It certainly didn't appeal to the critics of the time.
|8.12.09 @ 11:30AM|#
"Also, re: Alexander the Great, while the majority of the
primary sources are lost, there are a number of secondary sources,
from contemporaries, that reference the originals."
And the New Testament doesn't qualify as a secondary source that
references the original oral tradition?
"If you use the NT and influence as your evidence, you may as well
say Romulus and Remus are real. After all, their texts and the city
of Rome live on today."
Not at all. The new testament was a writing down of an existing
oral tradition. We know that oral traditions much older than the
Christian oral tradition of the time are in fact quite accurate. We
also know; see Tacitus, that there are reliable accounts of
Christians pretty quickly after the death of Christ. As Abdul
pointed out above, none of the NT bothers to argue the existence of
Jesus. It is taken as a given fact. Further, none of the pagan
critics of Christianity at the time, and there were many ever argue
that Jesus didn't exist. Why for example doesn't someone like
Porphyry, who was a wicked smart writer and thinker, make the
obvious argument that Jesus didn't even exist? The reason is that
there was no doubt in the 3rd Century AD that Jesus existed. This
idea that there never was a Jesus seems to be an invention of
modern Atheists. It certainly didn't appeal to the critics of the
time.
|8.12.09 @ 11:31AM|#
RC,
Except that Hawaii got rid of all paper original birth certificates
in 2001. So everyone born in Hawaii back then no longer has a
primary birth certificate document. Does that mean no one was born
there during that time period? Generally a historian would find a
birth announcement in a contemporary newspaper at the same time as
the birth as valid evidence.
|8.12.09 @ 11:34AM|#
"If you acknowledge that Jesus existed, the camel's nose is in
the tent.
I also deny the historical existence of Mohammed, for the
record.
Buddha? A folk legend.
Confucius? A collection of folk sayings was attributed to the
generic "grandfather" that was given a generic name. It's like
saying "John Bull says such-and-such" about England.
L. Ron Hubbard? Didn't happen. He was actually a pen name for the
amazingly prolific Heinlein. A "Richard Bachmann", if you
will.
You people who fell for the "official" story are all dupes."
The same is true of Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky. They are an
amalgamation of one person. No way did two people so near in time
and place just happen to grow up playing some weird tribal sport in
Canada and just happen to get famous and do all of these feats. If
you read the original source material, the few scrapes of old
Sporting News that were found in a cave near the ruins of Buffalo,
you can see the divergent Gretzky tradition being developed from
the older Orr tradition. If there even was such a person, it is
clear that the lost Q text of NHL history talked about a single
figure that was later divided into two separate traditions.
|8.12.09 @ 11:35AM|#
"You raise a valid point, one that can be answered by pointing
out that the passage of time and the lack of record-keeping would
lead one to expect a lack of contemporaneous documentation for a
man who lived a short life in a distant province of Rome."
Josephus, the Jewish historian, lived in the area shortly after
Jesus's supposed death and wrote extensively about the time and
area and about other claimed messiahs, but wrote nothing about
Jesus (except for what are considered interpolations by most Bible
scholars). If Jesus really was attracting large crowds, I find it
hard to believe that Josephus wouldn't have written about him. If
he was really so obscure, how would the belief have developed that
he was the Messiah? It seems clear to me that he was a fictional
character that the early Christians had believed had come to earth
as a man in some previous time. The Suffering Servant verses of
Isaiah 53 which were about Israel personified were misinterpreted
by the early Christians as applying to the Messiah. They came to
believe that he saved us through his sacrificial death. What other
name would this fictional character have than Jesus which means
"God is salvation"?
|8.12.09 @ 11:35AM|#
"Also, re: Alexander the Great, while the majority of the
primary sources are lost, there are a number of secondary sources,
from contemporaries, that reference the originals."
And the New Testament doesn't qualify as a secondary source that
references the original oral tradition?
Do you know what the word "contemporary" means? The NT is not
contemporary, as it was written well after the fact.
Also, just because some oral traditions are considered factual does
not mean all oral traditions are considered factual. None of the
contemporary Greek writing doubt the existence of Zeus, they take
it as a given that everyone believes in his existence.
|8.12.09 @ 11:36AM|#
"Does that mean no one was born there during that time period?
Generally a historian would find a birth announcement in a
contemporary newspaper at the same time as the birth as valid
evidence."
Of course they would. And if you are talking about 2000 years ago,
finding source documents within a century of the event talking
about the events themselves, would be considered strong evidence of
the person or events existence, unless those documents are called
the New Testament of course.
|8.12.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Maybe there was a Jesus. There's just no secular evidence. Now if you can't even prove the man existed how do you expect to prove anything specific he did with his time? Anyway it's clear Jesus was little more than one in a long life of millenialist cult leaders whose predictions about the end of the world haven't happened yet.
|8.12.09 @ 11:40AM|#
"Do you know what the word "contemporary" means? The NT is not
contemporary, as it was written well after the fact.
Also, just because some oral traditions are considered factual does
not mean all oral traditions are considered factual. None of the
contemporary Greek writing doubt the existence of Zeus, they take
it as a given that everyone believes in his existence."
I know fully what the word means. Those documents go back to the
lifespan of the actual events. If that is not contemporary, then
anything short of a newspaper article of the day of the crucifixion
doesn't count. That standard never seems to apply to any other
event except this one.
If Jesus never existed, the people of the time would have known
this fact. And Christianities early critics would have used this
against the religion. Further, its defenders would have had to have
answered the charge. Yet, this debate never happened at the time.
That is very strong evidence that there was no doubt in people's
minds that Jesus did in fact exist. Just debate about who the hell
he was.
|8.12.09 @ 11:41AM|#
"Anyway it's clear Jesus was little more than one in a long life
of millenialist cult leaders whose predictions about the end of the
world haven't happened yet."
He wasn't predicting the end of the world. He was predicting the
end of Israel, which very much happened shortly after his
death.
|8.12.09 @ 11:42AM|#
And if you are talking about 2000 years ago, finding source
documents within a century of the event talking about the events
themselves, would be considered strong evidence of the person or
events existence, unless those documents are called the New
Testament of course.
If the birth announcement appeared in the Weekly World News, I
doubt historians would consider the source as authoritative.
Considering the NT also says that there would be an apocalypse
during their time , that never happened, and the contradictions
between gospels you can't treat what it says as historic fact.
The Angry Optimist|8.12.09 @ 11:47AM|#
He wasn't predicting the end of the world. He was predicting the end of Israel
Where did you get that, Convenient Theories for Christians
Monthly?
|8.12.09 @ 11:48AM|#
"And the New Testament doesn't qualify as a secondary source
that references the original oral tradition?"
No, it doesn't. The earliest Christian writings are from Paul, who
knows nothing of the details of Jesus's life. Those details didn't
come until much later in the Gospels. It appears that either the
first oral reports of the life of Jesus was either fictional or
Mark invented the details. Q was mostly a "sayings" source which
Matthew and Luke used to attribute to the words of Jesus.
|8.12.09 @ 11:53AM|#
"He wasn't predicting the end of the world. He was predicting
the end of Israel"
Jesus said that there were some there standing who would not taste
death before they witness all those things and then they would see
the Lord coming in all his glory. He was not predicting the end of
Israel, he was predicting the coming of the Kingdom of God.
|8.12.09 @ 11:54AM|#
Q is the "ether" of Markian priority. It's an assumption without
which Markian priority fails.
If you assume Matthian priority, you, magically, don't have to
assume the existence of Q.
|8.12.09 @ 11:54AM|#
"He wasn't predicting the end of the world. He was predicting
the end of Israel
Where did you get that, Convenient Theories for Christians
Monthly?"
No, N.T. Wright. The Bishop of Durham. I would highly recommend his
book "The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins
and the Question of God." In it, he looks at 1st Century Judaism
and how it provides a context for what Christ was saying. Christ
was talking to the Jews. He was a messianic Jewish figure. His
message was first and foremost to the Jews. And it was that the
Jews needed to change their ways or God was going to revoke the
covenant and bring and end to Israel. That is what the "end of the
world" means in the 1st Century Jewish Context.
And AO, is there a reason why you feel the need to turn into such
an obnoxious prick every time the subject of religion comes up? You
just assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you got their ideas
from some pamphlet handed out at a tent revival. What the fuck is
with you?
highnumber|8.12.09 @ 11:54AM|#
The fact that Germany is still there and prosperous says a
lot more about how tough, smart and resilient the Germans are than
it does about the wrath of God.
You're right, John. It says absolutely nothing about the wrath of
God.
|8.12.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Highnumber,
I don't know. I was being flippent. There are lots of shitheads who
say that the Jews are foolish to believe in a God that allows the
holocaust. Of course, the holocaust didn't work out to well for the
Germans either.
The Angry Optimist|8.12.09 @ 11:59AM|#
John, hush, you're a prick about many things as well. I'd be glad to at some point read the book, but I will say that the apocalyptic language employed by your zombie god does not readily lend itself to that generous of an interpretation.
|8.12.09 @ 12:01PM|#
The big promise is that Gnostic texts will take some of the
shine off the religious belief that Jews are collectively
responsible for the death of Jesus
Never understood this. Israel was occupied by Rome and under Roman
Law and it was Roman soldiers under Roman orders that nailed Jesus
to the cross....and who seriously read Paunches Pilot washing his
hands really relinquished him from his responsibility? At what
point in the christian ethos was it ok for a pagan to forgive
himself from sin?
And then there is this generational blame...what the hell? I do
think the Romans did it but i am not about to blame modern day
Italians for something a brutal regime that happened to rule their
country 2000 fuking years ago did.
The Angry Optimist|8.12.09 @ 12:04PM|#
who seriously read Paunches Pilot
RC's Law!
You just made my day.
|8.12.09 @ 12:05PM|#
"If Jesus never existed, the people of the time would have known
this fact. And Christianities early critics would have used this
against the religion. Further, its defenders would have had to have
answered the charge. Yet, this debate never happened at the time.
That is very strong evidence that there was no doubt in people's
minds that Jesus did in fact exist. Just debate about who the hell
he was."
By the time Christianity became a major religion, the Gospels had
long been in existence and Jesus would have been long dead if he
had ever existed. Non-Christians had no reason to doubt his
existence because there was no proof one way or the other. They
just took Christians word that he must have existed. There is are
the Gnostics and the Docetists who were Christian groups who
doubted Jesus's physical existence. If Jesus really existed in the
flesh, how could those Christians have doubted his former physical
existence? All the more evidence that he began as a mythical
character.
Baslim|8.12.09 @ 12:06PM|#
Acutally wasn't it the fact that Germany tried to take on the combined power of the British Empire, the USSR and the USA that didn't work out very well for them? Or even ignoring that, the fact that 6-7 million other peoples were killed by the Nazis didn't work out that well for them? Maybe God has a speacial place in his heart for the Gypsies, 7th Day Adventest, or gays?
|8.12.09 @ 12:07PM|#
"Never understood this. Israel was occupied by Rome and under
Roman Law and it was Roman soldiers under Roman orders that nailed
Jesus to the cross....and who seriously read Paunches Pilot washing
his hands really relinquished him from his responsibility? At what
point in the christian ethos was it ok for a pagan to forgive
himself from sin?"
Exactly. And wasn't Jesus dying for the world's sin not just the
Jews? It was mankind who rejected and killed him. The Jews just
happened to be the ones closest at hand. To blame the Jews
exclusively is crazy.
The Angry Optimist|8.12.09 @ 12:09PM|#
well, if losing WWII was God's punishment for the Holocaust, then what was God punishing America for on 9/11, John?
|8.12.09 @ 12:11PM|#
"By the time Christianity became a major religion, the Gospels
had long been in existence and Jesus would have been long dead if
he had ever existed. Non-Christians had no reason to doubt his
existence because there was no proof one way or the other. They
just took Christians word that he must have existed. There is are
the Gnostics and the Docetists who were Christian groups who
doubted Jesus's physical existence. If Jesus really existed in the
flesh, how could those Christians have doubted his former physical
existence? All the more evidence that he began as a mythical
character."
But the same is true today. They had no more reason to doubt than
you do. But they didn't. it was because it was received wisdom of
the time that Jesus was a real person. How did that happen within
such a short time? Maybe Plotinus and company were just stupid and
not as smart as you and never thought of the brilliant argument
that Jesus never existed. Or perhaps, everyone at the time knew of
his existence and it wasn't up for debate. It should also be noted
that the Gnostics were nuts. There are people who believe that
Obama was born in Kenya and that the moon landing was fake. All the
more evidence for doofuses two thousand years from now to wonder if
such things can be true.
|8.12.09 @ 12:12PM|#
"well, if losing WWII was God's punishment for the Holocaust,
then what was God punishing America for on 9/11, John?"
I haven't spoken to him on the subject so I can't say. Again, it
was flippent statement. I have no idea if losing world war II was
God's punishment for anything.
|8.12.09 @ 12:19PM|#
The Angry Optimist | August 12, 2009, 12:04pm | #
who seriously read Paunches Pilot
RC's Law!
You just made my day.
Pontius Pilate
What sort of asshole finds spelling errors more then being simply
Spelling errors?
Please Angry Optimist tell us what sort of asshole you are.
|8.12.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Good catch Joshua. In TAO's mind there is one position on God and religion. Everyone who doesn't hold his positions is just an idiot fundie who gets his views from preachers on the radio or something like that.
The Angry Optimist|8.12.09 @ 12:25PM|#
. Everyone who doesn't hold his positions is just an idiot
John - no, not everyone. Just you.
|8.12.09 @ 12:44PM|#
So the birth certificate and newspaper announcements aren't
good enough for you?
Those are both second- or third-hand accounts, which, we are told,
are not good enough to establish that Jesus was a real
person.
The announcement is taken from a list provided by the Department of
Health, which gets its information from a hospital, physician, or
who knows where.
The birth "certification" that has been released is also a
second-hand document, where the Secretary of State confirms that
they have some documents around, somewhere, that he was born in
Hawaii. Those documents, BTW, could be affidavits by
relatives.
The primary documents are hospital or physician records, which have
not been released. Why not, I wonder?
So, if second- and third-hand accounts don't prove Jesus existed,
why should they prove that Obama was born in Hawaii?
|8.12.09 @ 12:46PM|#
What sort of asshole finds spelling errors more
then being simply Spelling errors?
I'll take that as an example of joe'z Memorial Law, Mr.
Corning.
Sometimes I find typos to be funny/insightful, that is all. So I
guess I'm that kind of asshole.
Adderall Apocalypse|8.12.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Let us also note the fact that the Jesus in the gospels is completely different from the Jesus in the epistles. There's no mention of any biographical details. Guess it wasn't too important to Paul that Jesus had been born of a virgin or healed the sick or anything like that. Also note how Paul always appeals to "the scripture" when talking about Jesus as opposed to, you know, words Jesus actually may have said. Also, note how different the Paul in the epistles is from the Paul in the book of Acts. For example, he never specifically mentions his Damascus Road experience in any of his epistles. I'm sure if Hay-zoos was so famous during his lifetime, some people might have written about some of the stuff he did at the time, as opposed to just the (at best) 2nd and 3rd-hand accounts we have from people who were trying to sell the message.
|8.12.09 @ 1:00PM|#
go ask the Germans and ask them how killing 6 million Jews
worked out for them in the end
Well, on the one hand there are almost no Jews left in Germany,
Poland, Austria or elsewhere in Central Europe. So you could say
"mission accomplished!"
And yes - cities being flattened, millions of young men killed in
the prime of life, losing Koenigsberg and Danzig, and having
millions of women raped by Russian soldiers was not a good thing.
However, the destruction the war caused arguably allowed the young
and energetic to push aside the older entrenched interests that
were holding the German economy back. Look at how quickly Germany
overtook and surpassed sclerotic France and the UK after the
war.
Still, given that Germany was forced to import all those Turks and
Yugoslavs to replace the manpower Germany lost in the war, I
suppose it really didn't work out very well in the end. Most
Germans would trade the Turks for the Jews back in a heartbeat.
Adderall Apocalypse|8.12.09 @ 1:11PM|#
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8
Hm... funny how Paul sees fit to mention the "eyewitness accounts"
of the risen Christ, but feels the need to reference "the
scriptures" when talking about how he died, was buried, and was
raised on the third day, as if "eyewitness accounts" weren't good
enough evidence of those events.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That a man
named Jesus existed in first-century Judea is not an extraordinary
claim, but the claims that he was born of a virgin and healed the
sick and rose from the dead are
extraordinary.
As I always say: physical evidence or GTFO!
Lao Tzu|8.12.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Be greatly skeptical of the religious, but don't bother to waste
your time with the atheist. There is no mystery there to be
unrivaled for he already knows everything.
Damn, out of ink. Bring me a new jar, these fortune cookies don't
write themselves.
Hey, fun trivia, did you know 'This old man' was about me? Next
time you give a dog a bone keep that in mind, okay?
!</ </a>|8.12.09 @ 1:35PM|#
who seriously read Paunches Pilot
I think he meant Paunche's Pilot, who has type ratings in several
airframes.
Guy Smiley|8.12.09 @ 1:51PM|#
Hm... Paul ... feels the need to reference "the scriptures"
when talking about how he died, was buried, and was raised on the
third day
What? "according to the scriptures" means, "as predicted in the Old
Testament". Obviously Jesus didn't rise from the dead "in
accordance" with scriptures that weren't written yet!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Claims require however much proof makes them more likely than their
alternatives. Whether or not they are "extraordinary" is a
subjective opinion. This phrase, along with "you can't prove a
negative" are the two great Made-Up-By-Atheists Fictional Laws of
Logic.
|8.12.09 @ 2:04PM|#
"Hm... Paul ... feels the need to reference "the scriptures"
when talking about how he died, was buried, and was raised on the
third day"
"What? "according to the scriptures" means, "as predicted in the
Old Testament". Obviously Jesus didn't rise from the dead "in
accordance" with scriptures that weren't written yet!"
That's right, the scriptures that Paul was talking about were the
Old Testament scriptures. The early Christians took the suffering
servant verses in Isaiah 53 which were about Israel personified to
apply to Jesus. The suffering servant verses apply to the death of
the suffering servant and about being buried with the rich. The
rising from the dead after 3 days referred to Jonah being in the
fish for 3 days and Israel being risen after the 3rd day.
Christians took those verses to be propecies about Jesus. The
concept of a god rising after 3 days also has its origins in pagan
religions.
Robert|8.12.09 @ 2:14PM|#
There really is wisdom of crowds. We see that now with Wikipedia. If there is common knowledge of an event, you can't just make up new facts and not have people call you on it. For this reason, oral traditions are much more records than we previously thought they were.
Given that fact, it would have been very difficult for an oral tradition to arise in 1st Century Palestine about a completely fictitious person.
I think the Scientologists have disproven the above. All it takes
to maintain an oral tradition, or an Internet one, is an interested
minority. It's not worth it to many to contradict their
claims.
The issue isn't just whether someone existed, but all the other
allegations about the person in question. A group of alumni started
a rumor about the otherwise obscure Wm. Webb Ellis well after his
death, that he'd more or less invented the Rugby version of
football by an incident at a certain date & time. The evidence
is overwhelmingly against the truth of this heralded and propagated
story, although it has never been absolutely disproven. A story was
concocted well after the death of Abner Doubleday that he'd
invented baseball, but at least that similarly promoted story has
been definitively disproven.
We know that people existed at the place &
time Jesus was alleged to have lived. There's no reason to think
people could not have similarly singled out a dead one of their
neighbors and made up stories about him, and maybe even given him
another name, all promotionally in a way similar to baseball or
football devotees. This would mean Christianity already existed at
the time, and just needed a founding story to spice things up.
Maybe they never considered that the founding story would come to
dominate everything else about their religion.
|8.12.09 @ 2:18PM|#
RC,
You keep missing the word "contemporary". A secondary source that's
contemporary, is much better than a second or third hand source 40
- 100 years after the dude died. I doubt the anti-birthers would
use the birth announcement as evidence if it was published in 1988,
instead of right after he was born.
|8.12.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Occam's razor suggests that a Jewish man called Yeshua bar Yosef did live in Palestine during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius and did preach sermons to his fellow Jews, and in all likelihood really was executed by the Roman authorities at the instigation of the Jewish elite in Jerusalem. No one can prove that those events did not take place, and those events in and of themselves do not prove the truth of the Christian religion. So I never understand why even the most committed atheist would waste time trying to claim the historical Jesus did not exist. I am quite sure that Joseph Smith was a real man who lived in the US in the 1800s, that doesn't mean I have to believe the stories he told, or the stories his followers tell about him.
|8.12.09 @ 2:42PM|#
R C Dean | August 12, 2009, 12:46pm | #
What sort of asshole finds spelling errors more then being simply
Spelling errors?
I'll take that as an example of joe'z Memorial Law, Mr.
Corning.
Sometimes I find typos to be funny/insightful, that is all. So I
guess I'm that kind of asshole.
Oh I see so derailing a discussion over typos and spelling errors
is all fun and games when it comes from a dipshit Birther.
|8.12.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Jesus probably existed simply because his story is far to
mundane to be made up.
If it was made up it would not look like the life of a carpenter
who was killed in a state execution with weird miracles added in
but would be a fucked up story with unicorns and rainbows and gods
that throw lighting on the ground and steal fire after being born
from the nuts of slain titan.
!</ </a>|8.12.09 @ 2:49PM|#
And all of this time I thought a birther was a person who rode first class on a train.
|8.12.09 @ 2:55PM|#
"If it was made up it would not look like the life of a
carpenter who was killed in a state execution with weird miracles
added in but would be a fucked up story with unicorns and rainbows
and gods that throw lighting on the ground and steal fire after
being born from the nuts of slain titan."
Exactly. If it were made up completely it would read like the
bhagavad gita. Whether you believe it or not, the NT is a really
wierd book and story. It contains all sorts of characters and
strange events that add nothing to the story and would have never
been put in by someone making the whole thing up.
Adderall Apocalypse|8.12.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Come on, guys! I know what scriptures Paul was talking about! I just think it's a bit strange that he doesn't mention any biographical details that could presumably also be vouched for by people who were alive at the time. Were they not somewhat important?
Adderall Apocalypse|8.12.09 @ 3:02PM|#
Claims require however much proof makes them more likely than their alternatives.
Obviously! That's what the phrase means... basically... But we
haven't seen this regarding the "life" of Jesus, have we? Also,
would you mind telling me how one would go about proving a
negative?
!</ </a>|8.12.09 @ 3:21PM|#
But we haven't seen this regarding the "life" of Jesus, have
we?
The Life of Brian validates it. He was born across the street from
Jesus.
|8.12.09 @ 4:21PM|#
I just think it's a bit strange that [Paul} doesn't mention
any biographical details that could presumably also be vouched for
by people who were alive at the time. Were they not somewhat
important?
Probably not. The lack of detail may suggest that none of Paul's
contemporaries questioned the existence of a historical Jesus. It
may well be Jesus' original followers didn't really know much about
the man's mundane daily life, they were listening to his teachings,
and then he got killed. When was Jesus out there sharing a wealth
of biographical detail with people? And people motivated by his
original teachings may just not have been that interested in Jesus
the Man, since mundane details could be perceived as diminishing
the mystery.
Mad Max|8.12.09 @ 5:22PM|#
Here is Josephus' description of the martyrdom of St. James, who is described as 'the brother of Jesus.' The purported monkish forgers are not alleged to have tampered with this passage, but with an earlier one about Jesus being the Christ, and potentially being more than a man.
|8.13.09 @ 12:32PM|#
The histories of Josephus have been called into question of late by two Authors. Joe Atwill in "Caeser's Messiah" and Stephan Huller's "The Real Messiah". In fact, I think most history recorded between 200 BC and the 1500 AD is questionable and likely propaganda.
|8.22.09 @ 3:44PM|#
If you want to get a scholarly opinion of the unreliability of
Josephus, read Thackeray's discussion of the 'helpers' (synergoi)
who developed his original Aramaic text after his death. If you
want to have some fun with the idea read Huller's (unfinished)
Josephus is full of shit blog:
http://josephusisfullofshit.blogspot.com/2008/05/introduction.html
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245