The Historical Jesus

Alright Snake, here's a link to an articles by Dr. William Lane Craig on the historical Jesus. Looking forward to you input.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...discover2.html

Also, please take a minute to look over these sites:

- http://www.jesus-institute.org/jesus...riptions.shtml
- http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pilate.htm
- http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

Now, to everyone other than Snake, the purpose of this thread is for Snake and I to discuss the aforementionned article and others which we will eventually post. Please refrain from posting to tell us that Jesus if a fictional character, inspired by Iulius Caesar or Osiris, and posting links to sites like jesusneverexisted.com. We've heard it all before, and that's not why this thread was created.

[Choobus]

If Jesus was real and a man there is no doubt that at somepoint he jacked off. Do you deny this peter?

1 Peter 3:15 wrote

Alright Snake, here's a link to an articles by Dr. William Lane Craig on the historical Jesus. Looking forward to you input.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...discover2.html

Also, please take a minute to look over these sites:

- http://www.jesus-institute.org/jesus...riptions.shtml
- http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pilate.htm
- http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

Now, to everyone other than Snake, the purpose of this thread is for Snake and I to discuss the aforementionned article and others which we will eventually post. Please refrain from posting to tell us that Jesus if a fictional character, inspired by Iulius Caesar or Osiris, and posting links to sites like jesusneverexisted.com. We've heard it all before, and that's not why this thread was created.

Yeah, Goddamnit! This is not a public forum, just for Snake and Peter for fuck's sake. Bow down to Satan, motherfucker!

[Choobus]

what did jesus think about when he masturbated? Mary, peter, twins? IS it in the bible?

1 Peter 3:15 wrote

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

Also, please take a minute to look over these sites:

- http://www.jesus-institute.org/jesus...riptions.shtml
- http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pilate.htm
- http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/

I read the article and I've quite a lot of things to say about it. I'll try to post them a bit later. The only really interesting thing in the article was the claim that Luke was a historian.
One of the things the article doesn't even discuss is how religions get started in general. For example, should the claims of Scientologists be taken seriously? Many people do. If there weren't evidence that suggests that L. Ron Hubbard made up the religion, according to the way of reasoning that Dr. Craig employs, there wouldn't be any reason to doubt Scientologists' claims.
Is it not possible that some people just invented Christianity? The very same people who wrote some of the oldest parts of the NT? Or perhaps Jesus started it. Perhaps he was a real person, just like David Koresh and other modern day cult leaders and the NT authors just fell for it?

This quote in particular was strange:
"The only reason left for denying that Jesus performed literal miracles is the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism, which is simply unjustified."
There's absolutely no hard evidence to support supernaturalism. Presupposing anti-supernaturalism in entirely justified. Believing that Jesus actually performed miracles based on such unreliable accounts takes quite a leap of faith.

By the way, the Jesus Institute link on eyewitnesses is inconsistent with that article. Jesus Institute claims that John and Matthew, who wrote the Gospels, were Jesus's disciples. Dr. Craig's article says that Mark's Passion Story is the oldest account of Jesus. Of course Jesus Institute doesn't even try to back up it's claims.

[calpurnpiso]

Jesus was the outer personna of the Lord and savior which preceded him called Divo Iulius. This is the reason the historical jesus is nowhere to be found!...but it can be found in the person of Iulius Caesar.

http://www.egodeath.com/RewritingCae...AsRebuttal.htm

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte.../contents.html

http://www.users.bigpond.com/pontificate/6.htm

calpurnpiso wrote

Jesus was the outer personna of the Lord and savior which preceded him called Divo Iulius. This is the reason the historical jesus is nowhere to be found!...but it can be found in the person of Iulius Caesar.

http://www.egodeath.com/RewritingCae...AsRebuttal.htm

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte.../contents.html

http://www.users.bigpond.com/pontificate/6.htm

Thanks Cal, great contribution as always. Now down to serious discussions.

TheSnake wrote

By the way, the Jesus Institute link on eyewitnesses is inconsistent with that article. Jesus Institute claims that John and Matthew, who wrote the Gospels, were Jesus's disciples. Dr. Craig's article says that Mark's Passion Story is the oldest account of Jesus. Of course Jesus Institute doesn't even try to back up it's claims.

I don't see the inconsistency in that. Just because John and Matthew were there, doesn't mean that their Gospels were written first. When Craig says 'oldest', he's saying written first.

1 Peter 3:15 wrote

I don't see the inconsistency in that. Just because John and Matthew were there, doesn't mean that their Gospels were written first. When Craig says 'oldest', he's saying written first.

If John and Matthew were eyewitnesses, their accounts have more weight even if their gospels were written later. Quoting Craig "The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. " So even though John's and Matthew's gospels were written later, they'd actually been recorded earlier. Craig doesn't even mention this, possibly because there isn't anything to support the claim that the gospel authors called John and Matthew were actually the apostles with same names.

Here's some more criticism on Craig's article.

Craig wrote

The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability. Again I only have time to look at one example: Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

I'd expect Craig to know what he's talking about when saying that the Gospel authors had a proven track record on reliability, but this article unfortunately doesn't show that. A cynical person (like me) could say that Craig doesn't even have as much 'evidence' to support the reliability of the other authors as he has for Luke.
He presents two things in the support for Luke.
1. Luke could write like a historian.
2. Luke traveled with Paul

The first part is backed up by a short quote from Luke, accompanied with this:

Craig wrote

This preface is written in classical Greek terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek. But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian. He speaks of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures us that it is based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the truth.

Exactly what would've prevented Luke from just copying the preface from an actual Greek historian? And even if he could write like a historian, what does that show? It's not uncommon for even educated people to fall for religions. Maybe Luke just got all the stuff from a source he trusted.

As to Luke traveling with Paul, Craig presents two things: The use of first-person and knowledge of historical facts.
Craig argues against some sea-travel storyform, which to me seems a bit like a strawman argument. Maybe Luke just wrote in first person, because he felt like it? Or maybe he got that text from someone else and just copied it?
The knowledge of historical fact isn't really convincing either. I don't know how people wrote back then, but today, it's not at all uncommon for an author of fiction to do significant research to get the facts straight for his story. A person who had traveled around could have easily composed stories based on what he remembered from his travels.
Even if Luke actually traveled with Paul, what does that prove? Not much.

Craig wrote

On the basis of the five reasons I listed, we are justified in accepting the historical reliability of what the gospels say about Jesus unless they are proven to be wrong. At the very least, we cannot assume they are wrong until proven right. The person who denies the gospels’ reliability must bear the burden of proof.

Craig well knows that it's next to impossible to disprove some of the things that the Gospels claim, especially if one isn't allowed to argue against supernaturalism. That a handful of questionable written accounts claim that Jesus could do things that according to present day knowledge are impossible isn't at all convincing. I could write a book talking about miracles and have everything else factually correct. I'm pretty sure Dr. Craig wouldn't believe in my book.
If Jesus didn't perform those miracles, it leads to question the overall reliability of the Gospels. If they've got some of the more important part wrongs, what else is fabricated?
So the burden of proof very much lies on the ones who claim that the Gospels are historically acurate. That doesn't leave much evidence for Jesus's existence.

One more thing, Craig's style of quoting authority figures is strange to say the least. His entire article is riddled with stuff like this:

Craig wrote

The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist, still stands: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Even the most sceptical critics cannot deny that the historical Jesus carried out a ministry of miracle-working and exorcism. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the most sceptical scholars this century has seen, wrote back in 1926

The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one indisputable fact."

[SteveG]

Jesus was the outer personna of the Lord and savior which preceded him called Divo Iulius. This is the reason the historical jesus is nowhere to be found!...but it can be found in the person of Iulius Caesar.


Well, this poor man is obviously infected with a severe form of anti-Christ-psychosis, not unlike a temporal lobe lobotomy. Non-Religious people are plainly SICK with a yet to be discovered pathogen. This sad affliction is a neurological disorder in which the temporal lobe area of the brain in which spiritual awareness takes place is totally defective. This occurs in only about 2% of the population. The logic centers of the brain become so inflamed that they begin to break down and cause irrational rants, as well as causing sufferer to denounce religious dogma while at the same time proclaiming dogmas regarding materialism. Probably the saddest aspect of this disease is that it not only degrades the temporal lobe functioning, but seriously degrades the bullshit detector region of the brain. This causes the sufferer to be susceptible to buying into any random unproven theory they run across on the internet.

This includes the belief that explanations of how the temporal lobes function (ala the work of the slightly wacky Persinger) explain why the functions exist in the overwhelming majority of normal, healthy human beings. This despite the claims of credible scientists that ..

Scientists are not at all arguing that all religious experiences can be related to temporal lobe epilepsy. While studies have clearly shown a relationship between religious experience and temporal lobe epilepsy. This does not explain all religious experience by any means. Religious and spiritual experiences are highly complex, involving emotions, thoughts, sensations and behaviours….

…Whether god exists or not is something that neuroscience cannot answer. For example, if we take a brain image of a person when they are looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there is actually a picture 'out there' or whether the person is creating the picture in their own mind.

Full article here…http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...nbrainqa.shtml

With regard to the specific claim made by this unfortunate sufferer of anti-Christ-psychoses, it is clearly an utterly nutty notion that the historical Jesus was actually Julius Divus based on series of forced and sometimes flat out false coincidences between the stories of the two men. The fact that the theory is based solely on the ‘historical’ research of Francesco Carotta, who as a linguist and philosopher has no credentials regarding historical studies, further impugns its value. It’s relevant that no serious historian has yet addressed this nonsense largely because it’s not serious enough to be addressed.

Here, get educated!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be easy enough to take apart the entire Carotta argument, but it’s so lacking in merit it’s not worth the effort. Instead, just a few highlights addressing some of the basic arguments:

Carotta: The bust of Caesar in the Torlonia Museum resembles Jesus significantly. Even the wreath he wears, the oak wreath of the soter, the Savior, corresponds in form and significance to the crown of thorns worn by the Holy One.

Don’t ask me how he knows this bust “resembles Jesus significantly” when no one knows what Jesus looked like and no images of him exist that we know of.

Carotta: Both Julius Caesar and Jesus began their careers in northern countries: Caesar in Gaul, Jesus in Galilee; both cross a fatal river: the Rubicon and the Jordan; both then enter cities: Corfinium and Cafarnaum; Caesar finds Corfinium occupied by a man of Pompey and besieges him, while Jesus finds a man possessed by an impure spirit. There is similarity in structure as well as in place names: Gallia > Galilaea; Corfinium > Cafarnaum; occupied/besieged > possessed (both obsessus inLatin). The similarities remain consistent throughout (when occupation or besieging is referred to in the one text, possession is used in the other, etc.)

No, Jesus never actually “crossed” the Jordan (though he was baptized there) , and how each river was ‘fatal’ is unclear. Beyond that, Julius Caesar career was quite successful long before he went to Gaul, so he certainly didn’t begin it at the crossing of the river. This is a terribly forced parallel.

Carotta: Pompey is the political godfather of Caesar and competes with him in the same way John the Baptist does with Jesus.


The same way? When did Jesus ever push through legislation on John’s behalf? And in fact John never competed with Jesus in the gospels, but is explicitly shown as saying that ‘I must decrease so he can increase.’ (Jn 3:30), and defers to Jesus in every encounter where the two are mentioned. There never was any competition between the two.

Carotta: Antony and Lepidus became Caesar’s successors, the first as flamen, high priest of the Divus Julius cult, the second as pontifex maximus, just as Simon and Peter do with Jesus (they both melt into one figure – Simon Peter).


Two into one, isn’t that convenient. There is no evidence that these were two people melting into one aside from Carotta’s attempt to do the melting to force another supposed coincidence. Oh yeah, and when did Peter become a high priest?

Carotta: Decimus Junius Brutus betrays Caesar as Judas betrays Jesus

Um, a lot of people in history have betrayed a lot of other people. But since the manner of betrayal is utterly different (one stabs his ‘friend’ in the back, the other squeals about the location of his ‘friend’ to the local authorities), and the resulting suicide of Judas is not paralleled in the Brutus story, this is shown to be another badly forced coincidence.

Carotta: Octavian is the young Caesar, his posthumously adopted son. John is adopted by Jesus as he is dying on the cross.


This is just factually incorrect. Jesus asks’ Mary (his mother) to adopt John, Jesus himself does not adopt John. That’s a pretty significant difference which shatters another supposed coincidence. And unless the act of supposed adoption was done while Caesar was actually being murdered, the parallel breaks down even further.

Nicomedes of Bithynia was said to have had nightly meetings with Caesar as did Nicodemus of Bethany with Jesus.


Again, this is just false. Nicodemus of the gospels is nowhere indicated as being from Bethany, and did not have regular ‘nightly meetings’ with Jesus.

Carotta: Cleopatra had a special relationship with Caesar as did Mary Magdalene with Jesus.

Ah, Dan Brown scholarship. Yes the parallel is clear, the empress of Egypt is exactly the same as the lowly former prostitute who follows Jesus. Ugh!

The Senate is Caesar’s enemy, just as the Council is Jesus’ Satan.

…Yep, you can tell that Carotta is a linguist – he knows how to play word games for fun and profit

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Signed,

Calripkenjunioro

[Rhinoqulous]

Hey Steve G., welcome to the forums. It would be great if you stuck around, as we've lost our last resident rational theist a couple of weeks ago. Also, I enjoyed reading you on the front page last week.

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

Great post, Steve. Funniest thing I've read today, so far. But then again, TheMaker or Carico haven't posted their latest screeds on Evilution.

Welcome to the forums. :)

[SteveG]

I hope it's funny for the right reasons, because it was actualy humorous as oppossed to simply ridiculous.

Is that signature really the answer you received from someone? Ugh!

1 Peter 3:15 wrote

We've heard it all before, and that's not why this thread was created.

Have you read Doherty?

His argument from Silence seems pretty ironclad to me. Would you be willing to address this if I elaborate?

[SteveG]

Have you bothered to read the counter arguments to Doherty before proclaiming it ironclad?

It's addressed in detail at this site: http://www.bede.org.uk/
and can be found specifically here: http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm/ (look for the section 'Replying to Earl Doherty')

The site also contains quite a bit more about the historical Jesus 'contraversy' (not that there's actually much of a real contraversy amongst serious historians).

Steve G. wrote

Have you bothered to read the counter arguments to Doherty before proclaiming it ironclad?

Yes. But thank you for the links. I'll respond more fully as soon as I can.

Welcome, Steve. Good to see some reasoned counterpoint on these boards again.