I Wasn't Debating Religion

I'm interested in the discussion that Rich proposes. If anyone can suggest a good book that covers the historical and scientifically proven facts that support biblical accounts, I would appreciate it.

 

Unless said blasphemer is going about raising people from the dead.

 

Re: Re: I Wasn't Debating Religion

I certainly think so. (Or should I have adjusted your comment for sarcasm? )

Let's see, Woody's made a ton of films that have delighted millions (and offended very few, except "Manhattan," perhaps). His stand-up comedy was spot-on and his books were laugh-out-loud funny. He has shied away from the spotlight during times when other celebraties have tried to leverage it towards their causes. He plays the clarinet in a jazz band every week. His TV writing credits are alongside the greats. What's not to like?

 

Re: Re: Re: I Wasn't Debating Religion

Hooking up with his wife's daughter, maybe?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: I Wasn't Debating Religion

Wrong.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I Wasn't Debating Religion

Really?

 

Debating religion is fun. Right next to slamming people's politics and sexual orientation.

 

How about a history forum then?

I shy away from the political and religion threads simply because I'd rather discuss DL and lighthearted OT stuff.


Dan

 

You can say many things about Jesus, you might even call Him a "blasphemer", and in fact, I'm glad you did, because at least you're apparently not succumbing to the ignorant notion that He never claimed to be G-d--He most certainly did in various ways with increasing frequency as His ministry progressed. But there is one thing that's irrefutable--He was by no means nondescript! Goodness, man, what about the Man (and I believe, G-d) was "nondescript"? Come on, Rich, you can do better than that, it was just a word that you liked and threw out there without real thought.

And to pretend that several thousand ancient documents attesting to his existence, as well as numerous near-contemporary secular accounts--both from friends and enemies--is not evidence, is perfectly absurd!

Jesus is undoubtedly the most thoroughly-attested ancient historical character in the history of the world, both in terms of the near-contemporaneous nature of the manuscripts (which you can go see for yourself in various museums, including the fragment of Matthew that dates to pre-70 a.d. at Magdalen College at Oxford University), ancient art of Jesus still existing in the catacombs below early AD towns, and the sheer number of manuscripts about His life (they number in the thousands, absolutely dwarfing all other historical characters).

Call Jesus a blasphemer, call the twelve disciples petty criminals (admittedly, He did associate with the lower rungs of society, and intentionally so), but please none of this prattle about there being insufficient evidence for His existence.

It's not even something the a reasonably educated person should propose, unless they want to be branded ignorant. You might as well say that no one else written about in the history of the world existed!

 

paging Nosborne

Not what?

 

A CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANT, what else?

 

Well, no. Confessional Lutherans aren't Protestants. And this confessional Lutheran refuses to get into this particular spitwad contest, agreeing with--yes--Mr Engineer. (It happened again! Yow!)

 

Shall I arrange for your long delayed circumcision??

Then you could get into some REALLY hateful arguments! (sort of)

 

Personally, I doubt (doubt and deny aren't exactly the same thing) whether Jesus ever claimed to be God. My reason for that doubt is precisely the blasphemy that such a claim would have been to Jewish ears. I have less trouble thinking that he might have come to consider himself the Messiah. But the Jews didn't expect the Messiah to be God himself, though he certainly would embody God's action here on earth.

Well, the crowds of Jerusalem are said to have been in a Messianic excitement, so he wasn't nondescript to them. But to the wider Roman world, the term probably fits. Jesus was probably seen by that small group outside the immediate area who were even aware of him (the Romans didn't have cable news) as just a local holy man in a remote province who had threatened to stir up an insurrection. The Romans had seen such things before and no doubt were unmoved.

That's news to me. I don't know of any accounts of Jesus' life and death other than those arising in the early Christian movement itself.

I'm inclined to follow Nosborne in thinking that the very existence of the early Christian movement is evidence that the movement had a source, an origin. I don't have much trouble in thinking that the Christian source was Jesus. But I do think that it's hard to separate the historical man from the religious legend. (The attempts to delineate the "historical Jesus" have always seemed like exercises in speculation.) My guess is that Jesus' own message and understanding of himself might have been reworked pretty dramatically after his death by people like Paul.

This isn't meant as a slam against Christianity. All the other religions have similar problems.

That's a pretty aggressive dismissal of Rich, so I'm going to come to his defense.

I think that the problem with Jesus, what sets him apart from less controversial ancient figures, is the extraordinary claims that are made about him.

The New Testament accounts of Christ are rather outlandish (the Christians themselves insist that these events are totally unique and miraculous divine acts). So it might be asking for a lot to insist that doubters must nevertheless accept that the more believable parts of the stories are true.

Evangelical Christians themselves reject precisely the kind of "picking and choosing" that they seem to be demanding that people like Rich do. If proper Christians are expected to accept the entire Bible and not just parts of it, then presumably Rich can dismiss the evidentiary value of the entire Bible and not just parts of it. I'm not sure why his blanket skepticism is any less educated or more ignorant than the evangelicals' blanket faith. So if anyone wants to convince Rich of the truth of something that scripture contains, then presumably they need to provide him with some independent evidence of whatever it is, evidence that isn't colored by the same religiously motivated special pleading.

 

Oh my, oh my. Two times in one day.

I agree completely and totally with Jimmy.



Tom Nixon

 

I consider the fact that they crucified Him on charges of blasphemy ipso facto evidence that He made such claims.

Now here, you're quite right. The Roman empire had bigger fish to fry than a small uprising in Palestine. But that has nothing to do with whether Jesus was "nondescript" in any absolute sense. He was, whether G-d or not--and you know my take on that matter--probably the most extraordinary character in history, if we can only believe a tenth of what is written about Him.

There are roughly 5,000 manuscripts and fragments of the NT as evidence of the existence of Jesus, dating to a relative eyeblink after the period in question vis-a-vis other documents of antiquity that no one would think to question.

There are the accounts of Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, etc. etc. etc.

Good, there's hope for the world!

If it was, why do we not see numerous ancient accounts to the effect that "No, I don't care what this ex-pharisee says, that's not what Jesus said"? You see, Bill, these accounts were written within the time period in which there were still people alive--probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands--who had seen Jesus, spoken with Him, been healed by Him, watched Him die. Would we not be buried in an avalanche of ancient accounts stating that no matter how this sect of Christians is trying to spin this for political or religious gain, that's not what happened?

But we don't see these statements turning up in antiquity. Even Jesus' enemies do not seem to deny the essence of most of what He did or claimed to have done. The historical evidence is simply not upon the side that you're supporting.

Yes, but they're not true.

Rich asked for it--come on, admit it.

And assuming G-d came and lived among us in the flesh, would you expect Him to do extraordinary things? Would you expect witnesses to make outlandish claims about Him? I'd sure hope so of a diety who could create the entire Universe.

 

Well, I'd bris-tle at the thought, but you're several decades too late. Otherwise, I'd have to mohel it over.

 

Uncle,

We could get it done chop-chop!

No, the Romans did not crucify Jesus for claiming to be God. They quite properly crucified him for a capital offense against ROMAN Law, to wit: setting himself up as a rival king to the Roman authorities.

"Quite properly" in this instance means that he received a Roman trial, including the right to speak in his own defense and was convicted (more or less) by his own confession.

Jewish law wouldn't then, and won't now, accept a confession in a captial case. (Of course, even in Israel, there ARE no capital cases, barring Eichmann) but the Roman system DID, even as American law does today.

Listen carefully, folks...The Romans killed Jesus. The Jews did not kill Jesus. Okay?

 

None of this nonsense!

The Romans would not likely have killed Jesus at all were it not for the leverage put upon Pilate by the Jewish leaders. The Romans typically did not bother religious sects unless they became dangerous to the empire. The Christians (they were not even known as such at the time) were anything but a political threat; Jesus had refused to be drawn into political debates. Why do you think Pilate was so reticent to do the deed?

The Jews were responsible for His death--this is irrefutable. But equally irrefutable is that the Jews were responsible for following Him, spreading His message to the gentiles (such as me), and attempting to defend Him from those who sought to kill Him.

The Jews both hated Him and loved Him--just depends on which group of Jews you're talking about.