Gospel of John

[Mithrae]

I'm interested in folk's views on the subject. A few points worth discussing:

1 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel was written in the late 1st century CE, some 60ish years after Jesus' death.
- - - the earliest manuscript fragments date from as early as 130CE, if memory serves; the work has strong anti-gnostic themes, and early Christian tradition holds that it was written in opposition to the teaching of Cerinthus (late 1st century)

2 - Many biblical scholars hold that the gospel had the same author as the first epistle of John
- - - the similarities in style, themes (love, anti-gnostic themes etc.) and specific phraseology are obvious even to the untrained reader

3 - 1 John 1:1-3, John 1:14 and John 19:35 are the only distinct eyewitness claims regarding Jesus' life in the bible (besides 2 Peter, widely held to be a 2nd century work)
- - - of particular interest, note the contrast between 19:35 and the appended section in 21:24, which uses third person

4 - While someone present during Jesus' ministry would be in his 80s by the time the gospel was written, there are numerous examples of such comparatively long lives in the ancient world (several notable Greek philosophers, for example)

5 - In addition to the specific eyewitness claims, some verses such as John 5:2 imply a sense of familiarity with Jerusalem which one wouldn't particularly expect from the author of Greek work, unless the author was in fact a Jew



Interested in everyone's thoughts

[Mithrae]

When you ask for evidence, what exactly do you have in mind? Two specific examples may help with the clarification.
- What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?
- And what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that Jesus did exist?

For Goat (with a snide implication regarding Josephus/James ) one can't help but get the impression that even if we found a 4th century archive in Rome with copies of death records throughout the empire, if one read "Jesus son of Joseph, crucified under Pilate for sedition" some folk would claim it was artificially added by Constantine.

If it was 4th century, then, yes, it would be a much too late a date, and it would be 'too good to be true', so to speak.

I will tell you what would have convinced me if it wasn't a modern forgery was the ossuary of James. If we found some writings that could be dated from before the destruction of the Jewish temple from a non-christian source that mentioned Jesus with enough information to identify him as a preacher who was executed, I would accept that. It was was after the synoptic gospels were written, then the source of the information could be the synoptic gospels.

Thankyou. Of course, the only two such sources would be either some kind of Roman execution record (which would likely not mention that the deceased was a preacher), or a comment by a Jew. In either case, are you sure you wouldn't think it 'too good to be true'? You specified writings, which are almost never found as originals. The suspicion that it might be a century Christian forgery would never enter your mind? Or that it might be a forgery even if it was indisputably written in the 60s CE?

Paul would fit that description almost perfectly of course; a contemporary of Jesus who spent considerable time in Judea and Jerusalem and who states that he initially harried the followers of Jesus. But since he had some kind of vision of a risen divine Jesus, he apparently doesn't count as evidence that the man Jesus even existed in the first place?

And Josephus' reference to James is non-Christian and well within your 40-year time limit. Yet this apparently is not suitable evidence either? I notice that you haven't made any guess why Josephus would on that sole occasion use the term 'christ' for a priest, nor provided any evidence that it's a scribal gloss, nor commented on the difficulties which arise if it were, nor ventured an opinion on whether or not it would be a remarkable co-incidence to have two such Jameses in Jerusalem around that time.

Regardless, it's curious that a perfect comparison for your required evidence regarding Jesus is not accepted in the case of James. And a near-perfect comparison is apparently rejected simply because the individual ended up converting.

I appreciate your answer though Do you stand by it, or would you like to add new terms? For example, we could add that the source must specifically mention meeting Jesus and/or must use at least X different descriptions to show beyond the slightest modicrum of doubt who he's referring to (presumably without causing any unusual interruption in the flow of the passsage, which would raise suspicion and seem too good to be true).

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

Mithrae,
I may have underestimated you and responded as though you were one of the usual Parroting of Dogma Fundamentalists who refuse to think about what they quote from scripture and refuse to defend their claims and stories. Perhaps you can do better than the standard pattern in these debates.

Thankyou for admitting the possibility that I might at some point argue better than a "parroting of dogma" fundamentalist. It's comforting to know that my posts so far have shown the potential to become that good!

Questions of my debating potential aside, I should mention that in my second post of this thread, in a paragraph adressed directly to you, I wrote that "I'm not a Christian and enjoy debating as much as the next man..." If it's taken you this long to finally understand that exceedingly simple fact, I suspect that the likelihood of myself (or anyone else) having a productive discussion with you is approximately nil. Reading and comprehension are essential for communication, after all. Nevertheless.

I'll try to keep my response brief, but as usual please let me know if I've overlooked anything in your post which you claim is significant.

I have no objection to Christian sources as evidence " provided they can be verified like all other sources and provided that the source is not cited to support itself (i.e., using bible stories to support bible stories).

Poor comprehension
Imprecise or uncritical thinking
I've mentioned several times that the bible isn't a single source. It's a collection of distinct writings which were canonised (in the case of the NT) through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Describing it as a single source sometimes used to support itself is an imprecise or uncritical way of thinking about it.

However you've made the claim that 'bible stories' are a single source sometimes used to support itself. You make the claim more clearly later in your post - "the evidence you cite is simply more tales from the same source as the one you are trying to support or defend." Please provide evidence to support your claim that the bible is a single source.

Christian churchmen who selected and edited manuscripts that became know as the bible are likely to have had at least a SLIGHT pro-Christian bias.

Please provide evidence that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible. Please explain what you mean by 'bias' and provide evidence that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias.

Would you care to try to defend a claim that James the brother of Jesus referred to the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth " the miracle worker?

Poor comprehension
I haven't made any claims about working miracles. However my last post very clearly has a defence of the claim that Josephus makes reference to the biblical James and Jesus.

He [Paul] CLAIMS to have met Jesus in a vision " and does not, evidently, claim to have known him in person. If that is true, he wrote tales of Jesus from HEARSAY (something heard from others).

Is THAT what you consider real world evidence? Hearsay?

Poor comprehension
Straw-man
I mentioned Paul specifically as evidence regarding the existence of James. Before my comments to Goat in this post, I have never used Paul as evidence regarding Jesus. Paul does say that he met James on multiple occasions. That is not hearsay, and your comments here are a strawman.

The gospel of Mark is real world evidence ONLY that someone whose identity is not known or is disputed, later given the name Mark, wrote tales about Jesus. Some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers. None are known to be first-hand (actually eyewitness) accounts. The time of writing cannot be established with certainty, but appears to be decades or generations AFTER the supposed events.

Please provide evidence for your claims that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" and that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events."

All the gospels and epistles are religious promotional writings " gathered and combined by religious people into a compiled and edited text that is religious promotional material.

Please provide evidence for your claim that all the epistles are religious promotional writings. (By the way, in the interests of convenience, I'll put all these claims you've made into a list at the end of my post.)

It is not surprising to find that papers collected to reflect certain religious views reflect certain religious views " that tales reinforce one another.

Please provide evidence for your claim that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings.

However even then, there are some non-Christian references to Jesus as a magician (eg. in the Talmud), suggesting that those authors believed he did supernatural things.

I am unfamiliar with Talmud references to Jesus as a magician. Can you provide a link or two?

It's nearly midnight, and this around the point where my computer ate my first attempted reply, so I'm a little frustrated with it. Since it's a minor point, for now I'll just refer you to the Encyclopaedia Judaica.

I KNOW that a large percentage of modern folks believe that invisible, undetectable, supernatural gods created the universe and influence human lives (and presumed afterlives) " ALL based upon ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion.

Could you provide evidence for your claim that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods? I'm trying to be fair in picking out which claims I request evidence for by the way, in the interests of relative brevity if nothing else. As a claim about religious psychology, this may offer insight into your/our level of understanding regarding those ancient tales.

I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true.

Okay, lets apply that to the bible tale of resurrection. What details might we sort out as being true " and how would we learn their truth?

Accounts of the resurrection can be found from Paul, Mark (as the basis for the tales in Matthew and Luke) and John (which has no literary dependance on the synoptics). Common to all accounts are the death of Jesus, that it was on the third day he allegedly rose, and the identity of Peter as the first male witness. John and Mark both agree that the first witness/es were female (very weak testimony, in the ancient world), and that Mary Magdalene was there. They both agree that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. We thus find theories such as the women mistaking the location of the tomb and their grief and/or hallucination giving rise to the resurrection story and perhaps a series of such visions inspiring hope amongst a group in an otherwise overwhelmingly hopeless situation.

We "learn the truth" based on principles such as extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence (ruling out supernatural elements as being reasonably justified), corroboration of details between sources, potential theological biases regarding specific details (eg. the likely bias against female witnesses could imply that their presence in the two more detailed accounts has a basis in fact) etc. etc.

What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?

I would expect that the identity of the writer be KNOWN, that there be records of the person and his connection to Jesus (aside from tales in a storybook that are offered as truthful without verification).

That doesn't answer the question; belief that the author was John is justified if we KNOW the author was John? I asked for an exact explanation of what evidence you want, perhaps a couple of examples of what you'd consider sufficient. If "tales in a storybook" means the bible, does that mean you accept accounts of the author and his connection to Jesus from other early Christian sources?

I'm asking for what you'd consider sufficent evidence to reasonably justify belief, not what would convince you personally. You've stated your opinion that Christians "have NOT provided information upon which a reasoned decision can be based" regarding the fourth gospel - so what information would be sufficient as a basis for a reasoned decision, whatever decision each person might make?

What hypothetical scenario might satisfy your request for evidence?

I do not doubt that a preacher, perhaps named Jesus, lived a couple thousand years ago " and may have become immortalized as the pattern for Christian beliefs.

You don't doubt that a preacher lived a couple thousand years ago, perhaps under the name Jesus. But that such a figure 'may' have become immortalised as the pattern for Christian beliefs implies a measure of doubt, yes?

Is it your position that believing such a founder-figure 'may' have existed is reasonable without evidence? Perhaps it's even reasonable to believe that he did exist without evidence? If not, then what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that such a founder-figure did exist?

I remind you that you asked the question:
"However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus..."

The question is meaningless unless you define your terms. What would serve as the evidence you request? What hypothetical scenario/s would provide evidence to reasonably justify belief?





And as promised, out of the claims which you made in this post, here is the summary list of the ones which I think are worth providing evidence to support:
1 - that the bible is a single source
2 - that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible
3 - that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias
4 - that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" (Mark)
5 - that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events" (Mark)
6 - that all the epistles are religious promotional writings
7 - that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings
8 - that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods?

Please note that I'm trying to pay attention to your specific points, to which ones seem important and which ones less so, rather than simply ignoring all that's gone before and asking "Are you making a claim regarding the fourth gospel? If so what claim do you make?" As you would have guessed at the time, that comment annoyed me somewhat Hopefully we're on the road to a more productive exchange of views, evidence and epistemological criteria now

[Goat]

When you ask for evidence, what exactly do you have in mind? Two specific examples may help with the clarification.
- What exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that the fourth gospel was written by a disciple of Jesus?
- And what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that Jesus did exist?

For Goat (with a snide implication regarding Josephus/James ) one can't help but get the impression that even if we found a 4th century archive in Rome with copies of death records throughout the empire, if one read "Jesus son of Joseph, crucified under Pilate for sedition" some folk would claim it was artificially added by Constantine.

If it was 4th century, then, yes, it would be a much too late a date, and it would be 'too good to be true', so to speak.

I will tell you what would have convinced me if it wasn't a modern forgery was the ossuary of James. If we found some writings that could be dated from before the destruction of the Jewish temple from a non-christian source that mentioned Jesus with enough information to identify him as a preacher who was executed, I would accept that. It was was after the synoptic gospels were written, then the source of the information could be the synoptic gospels.

Thankyou. Of course, the only two such sources would be either some kind of Roman execution record (which would likely not mention that the deceased was a preacher), or a comment by a Jew. In either case, are you sure you wouldn't think it 'too good to be true'? You specified writings, which are almost never found as originals. The suspicion that it might be a century Christian forgery would never enter your mind? Or that it might be a forgery even if it was indisputably written in the 60s CE?

Paul would fit that description almost perfectly of course; a contemporary of Jesus who spent considerable time in Judea and Jerusalem and who states that he initially harried the followers of Jesus. But since he had some kind of vision of a risen divine Jesus, he apparently doesn't count as evidence that the man Jesus even existed in the first place?

And Josephus' reference to James is non-Christian and well within your 40-year time limit. Yet this apparently is not suitable evidence either? I notice that you haven't made any guess why Josephus would on that sole occasion use the term 'christ' for a priest, nor provided any evidence that it's a scribal gloss, nor commented on the difficulties which arise if it were, nor ventured an opinion on whether or not it would be a remarkable co-incidence to have two such Jameses in Jerusalem around that time.

Regardless, it's curious that a perfect comparison for your required evidence regarding Jesus is not accepted in the case of James. And a near-perfect comparison is apparently rejected simply because the individual ended up converting.

Well, you are wrong. Josephus' antiquties was written in 93 C.E, which is 60 years after the event, and the problems with it being inserted later, or taken out of context have been addressed many times.

Tell you what, if you read the 'christ' passage in context, can you show, using the context of Antiquities 20, that it doesn't mean Jesus the high priest?

Here is the entire Antiquities 20:1.


1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.


Can you show that it doesn't refer to Jesus, son of Damneus, using the context of
Antiquities?

Remember, the 'high priest' is a 'christ'.

I

[Mithrae]

And Josephus' reference to James is non-Christian and well within your 40-year time limit. Yet this apparently is not suitable evidence either? I notice that you haven't made any guess why Josephus would on that sole occasion use the term 'christ' for a priest, nor provided any evidence that it's a scribal gloss, nor commented on the difficulties which arise if it were, nor ventured an opinion on whether or not it would be a remarkable co-incidence to have two such Jameses in Jerusalem around that time.

Regardless, it's curious that a perfect comparison for your required evidence regarding Jesus is not accepted in the case of James. And a near-perfect comparison is apparently rejected simply because the individual ended up converting.

Well, you are wrong. Josephus' antiquties was written in 93 C.E, which is 60 years after the event, and the problems with it being inserted later, or taken out of context have been addressed many times.

Tell you what, if you read the 'christ' passage in context, can you show, using the context of Antiquities 20, that it doesn't mean Jesus the high priest?

Here is the entire Antiquities 20:1.
[snip]
Can you show that it doesn't refer to Jesus, son of Damneus, using the context of
Antiquities?

Remember, the 'high priest' is a 'christ'.

I mean that, since you have given a 40-year time-frame for evidence regarding Jesus, it's curious that you don't accept evidence within a 30-year time-frame for James. Probably should have been clearer about that

No-one can (or ever could, in any hypothetical scenario) prove that it refers to the biblical Jesus. More information would make the identification more likely, but would also seem suspicious coming from an author promoting Jewish culture to the empire - it would be suspected as a Christian forgery (even more than merely mentioning the term by which Jesus was called, that is). To re-iterate the points I've already made (and have not been answered):
- Why would Josephus, on this single occasion, use the term 'christ' to describe a priest?
- Why would the relationship with the future high priest (who wasn't a 'christ' at the time) not be made more clear, if it was worth breaking convention by identifying James with his brother?
- Who and why were these 'others' killed with James (and if it comes to it, why was the brother of a respectable high priest candidate killed in the first place)?
All of these questions are easily answered - with known information, rather than speculation or conjecture - if the person in question was the biblical James. The only objection, to my knowledge, is "Why would Josephus state that Jesus was known by the term he was commonly known by? He was a Jew! A Jew couldn't make an unbiased statement about the founder-figure of an offshoot sect!"

As for being inserted later, I've already mentioned that Origen (c 240CE) quotes the known text of this passage on three different occasions (the fact that he doesn't mention anything like the TF is compelling evidence that there wasn't even an unaltered original, imho). That's around 150 years in which we are to believe that the original was written, some Christian scribe made a copy somewhere with a marginal note about Christ, and even later another Christian scribe assumed it was part of the text and incorporated it, and this happened to be the corrupted text which Origen referred to (and, to accept it as genuine, the only such text he had access to). Trouble is, scribes weren't exactly a dime a dozen back in those days, from what I gather. And the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries were undergoing a massive process of sorting out 'true' doctrine from false, trying to work out which writings should be considered 'scripture,' formalising the structure of the church, opposing heretics, seeking to win new converts and encouraging each other against persecution. How many Christian scribes were likely to have spent their time copying the text of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, rather than the gospels, Paul's letters, even texts from the Old Testament or other less important writings from the NT or church fathers?

There is simply no evidence, in any form, that the passage has been altered. A lack of evidence is the single most common and most important critique levelled against conservative Christianity, or even theists in general. In this case, not only is an argument made for a scenario which has no evidence, but it seems the scenario is in fact quite unlikely.

As a point of interest, after a few posts in this thread a person privately welcomed me to the forum with mention that you (among others) would be a fair and knowledgeable debating partner, which has proven to be true And as debaters hoping to score 'points,' it certainly makes sense to mention a writer who argues that the term 'Christ' is a later insertion. But as a couple of guys (assuming you're a guy ) who happen to enjoy a little mental exercise such as this, endorsing a position through repetition which seems unlikely and has no supporting evidence will never convince anyone and, though I'll probably leave and go back to my computer games within a month or two, won't garner much respect either. I enjoy scoring points as much as the next man, but generally if I don't think something merits a mention, I won't mention it. Just my personal perspective, of course

[Goat]

And Josephus' reference to James is non-Christian and well within your 40-year time limit. Yet this apparently is not suitable evidence either? I notice that you haven't made any guess why Josephus would on that sole occasion use the term 'christ' for a priest, nor provided any evidence that it's a scribal gloss, nor commented on the difficulties which arise if it were, nor ventured an opinion on whether or not it would be a remarkable co-incidence to have two such Jameses in Jerusalem around that time.

Regardless, it's curious that a perfect comparison for your required evidence regarding Jesus is not accepted in the case of James. And a near-perfect comparison is apparently rejected simply because the individual ended up converting.

Well, you are wrong. Josephus' antiquties was written in 93 C.E, which is 60 years after the event, and the problems with it being inserted later, or taken out of context have been addressed many times.

Tell you what, if you read the 'christ' passage in context, can you show, using the context of Antiquities 20, that it doesn't mean Jesus the high priest?

Here is the entire Antiquities 20:1.
[snip]
Can you show that it doesn't refer to Jesus, son of Damneus, using the context of
Antiquities?

Remember, the 'high priest' is a 'christ'.

I mean that, since you have given a 40-year time-frame for evidence regarding Jesus, it's curious that you don't accept evidence within a 30-year time-frame for James. Probably should have been clearer about that

No-one can (or ever could, in any hypothetical scenario) prove that it refers to the biblical Jesus. More information would make the identification more likely, but would also seem suspicious coming from an author promoting Jewish culture to the empire - it would be suspected as a Christian forgery (even more than merely mentioning the term by which Jesus was called, that is). To re-iterate the points I've already made (and have not been answered):
- Why would Josephus, on this single occasion, use the term 'christ' to describe a priest?
- Why would the relationship with the future high priest (who wasn't a 'christ' at the time) not be made more clear, if it was worth breaking convention by identifying James with his brother?
- Who and why were these 'others' killed with James (and if it comes to it, why was the brother of a respectable high priest candidate killed in the first place)?
All of these questions are easily answered - with known information, rather than speculation or conjecture - if the person in question was the biblical James. The only objection, to my knowledge, is "Why would Josephus state that Jesus was known by the term he was commonly known by? He was a Jew! A Jew couldn't make an unbiased statement about the founder-figure of an offshoot sect!"

As for being inserted later, I've already mentioned that Origen (c 240CE) quotes the known text of this passage on three different occasions (the fact that he doesn't mention anything like the TF is compelling evidence that there wasn't even an unaltered original, imho). That's around 150 years in which we are to believe that the original was written, some Christian scribe made a copy somewhere with a marginal note about Christ, and even later another Christian scribe assumed it was part of the text and incorporated it, and this happened to be the corrupted text which Origen referred to (and, to accept it as genuine, the only such text he had access to). Trouble is, scribes weren't exactly a dime a dozen back in those days, from what I gather. And the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries were undergoing a massive process of sorting out 'true' doctrine from false, trying to work out which writings should be considered 'scripture,' formalising the structure of the church, opposing heretics, seeking to win new converts and encouraging each other against persecution. How many Christian scribes were likely to have spent their time copying the text of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, rather than the gospels, Paul's letters, even texts from the Old Testament or other less important writings from the NT or church fathers?

There is simply no evidence, in any form, that the passage has been altered. A lack of evidence is the single most common and most important critique levelled against conservative Christianity, or even theists in general. In this case, not only is an argument made for a scenario which has no evidence, but it seems the scenario is in fact quite unlikely.

As a point of interest, after a few posts in this thread a person privately welcomed me to the forum with mention that you (among others) would be a fair and knowledgeable debating partner, which has proven to be true And as debaters hoping to score 'points,' it certainly makes sense to mention a writer who argues that the term 'Christ' is a later insertion. But as a couple of guys (assuming you're a guy ) who happen to enjoy a little mental exercise such as this, endorsing a position through repetition which seems unlikely and has no supporting evidence will never convince anyone and, though I'll probably leave and go back to my computer games within a month or two, won't garner much respect either. I enjoy scoring points as much as the next man, but generally if I don't think something merits a mention, I won't mention it. Just my personal perspective, of course

You tell me why he shouldn't use the term 'annointed one' for the high priest.Funny how you didn't point out how it can't refer to Jesus the high priest using,you know,..the context of the passage.

As for the evidence of James.. well, Show me.

As for the claim that the TF existed , but was merely modified, prove it.

The term 'Christ' means anointed one, and it isn't just any priest. It is the HIGH Priest, who is an anointed one. The High Priest got anointed in the temple every year, and we are talking about Jesus , the high priest.

That's why.

[Mithrae]

I mean that, since you have given a 40-year time-frame for evidence regarding Jesus, it's curious that you don't accept evidence within a 30-year time-frame for James. Probably should have been clearer about that

No-one can (or ever could, in any hypothetical scenario) prove that it refers to the biblical Jesus. More information would make the identification more likely, but would also seem suspicious coming from an author promoting Jewish culture to the empire - it would be suspected as a Christian forgery (even more than merely mentioning the term by which Jesus was called, that is). To re-iterate the points I've already made (and have not been answered):
- Why would Josephus, on this single occasion, use the term 'christ' to describe a priest?
- Why would the relationship with the future high priest (who wasn't a 'christ' at the time) not be made more clear, if it was worth breaking convention by identifying James with his brother?
- Who and why were these 'others' killed with James (and if it comes to it, why was the brother of a respectable high priest candidate killed in the first place)?
All of these questions are easily answered - with known information, rather than speculation or conjecture - if the person in question was the biblical James. The only objection, to my knowledge, is "Why would Josephus state that Jesus was known by the term he was commonly known by? He was a Jew! A Jew couldn't make an unbiased statement about the founder-figure of an offshoot sect!"

You tell me why he shouldn't use the term 'annointed one' for the high priest.Funny how you didn't point out how it can't refer to Jesus the high priest using,you know,..the context of the passage.

Jesus son of Damneus was not high priest at the time. I did mention this. Please don't ignore what I've written, especially if you're trying to be sardonic.

As for the evidence of James.. well, Show me.

You haven't even acknowledged my most recent comments about Paul and Hegesippus' references to James, let alone shown why they are not to be considered as some measure of historical evidence. Why would I bother repeating myself on your demand?

As for the claim that the TF existed , but was merely modified, prove it.

I clearly stated my opinion that there probably was no original TF:
"the fact that he [Origen] doesn't mention anything like the TF is compelling evidence that there wasn't even an unaltered original, imho"
Please try to read what I've written, especially if you're attempting a peremptory demand for 'proof.'

The term 'Christ' means anointed one, and it isn't just any priest. It is the HIGH Priest, who is an anointed one. The High Priest got anointed in the temple every year, and we are talking about Jesus , the high priest.

Please provide evidence that 'christ' refers only to the high priest. In the Hebrew scriptures the term 'mashiyach' (anointed) is used 39 times, referring to high priests, priests and kings (including the gentile king Cyrus). How was it translated in the Septuagint? Where did you learn that the Greek 'christ' refers only to a high priest?

How many other high priests did Josephus call 'christ'? How many of the 'christs' from the Septuagint did he call 'christ'?

[Goat]

I mean that, since you have given a 40-year time-frame for evidence regarding Jesus, it's curious that you don't accept evidence within a 30-year time-frame for James. Probably should have been clearer about that

No-one can (or ever could, in any hypothetical scenario) prove that it refers to the biblical Jesus. More information would make the identification more likely, but would also seem suspicious coming from an author promoting Jewish culture to the empire - it would be suspected as a Christian forgery (even more than merely mentioning the term by which Jesus was called, that is). To re-iterate the points I've already made (and have not been answered):
- Why would Josephus, on this single occasion, use the term 'christ' to describe a priest?
- Why would the relationship with the future high priest (who wasn't a 'christ' at the time) not be made more clear, if it was worth breaking convention by identifying James with his brother?
- Who and why were these 'others' killed with James (and if it comes to it, why was the brother of a respectable high priest candidate killed in the first place)?
All of these questions are easily answered - with known information, rather than speculation or conjecture - if the person in question was the biblical James. The only objection, to my knowledge, is "Why would Josephus state that Jesus was known by the term he was commonly known by? He was a Jew! A Jew couldn't make an unbiased statement about the founder-figure of an offshoot sect!"

You tell me why he shouldn't use the term 'annointed one' for the high priest.Funny how you didn't point out how it can't refer to Jesus the high priest using,you know,..the context of the passage.

Jesus son of Damneus was not high priest at the time. I did mention this. Please don't ignore what I've written, especially if you're trying to be sardonic.

As for the evidence of James.. well, Show me.

You haven't even acknowledged my most recent comments about Paul and Hegesippus' references to James, let alone shown why they are not to be considered as some measure of historical evidence. Why would I bother repeating myself on your demand?

As for the claim that the TF existed , but was merely modified, prove it.

I clearly stated my opinion that there probably was no original TF:
"the fact that he [Origen] doesn't mention anything like the TF is compelling evidence that there wasn't even an unaltered original, imho"
Please try to read what I've written, especially if you're attempting a peremptory demand for 'proof.'

The term 'Christ' means anointed one, and it isn't just any priest. It is the HIGH Priest, who is an anointed one. The High Priest got anointed in the temple every year, and we are talking about Jesus , the high priest.

Please provide evidence that 'christ' refers only to the high priest. In the Hebrew scriptures the term 'mashiyach' (anointed) is used 39 times, referring to high priests, priests and kings (including the gentile king Cyrus). How was it translated in the Septuagint? Where did you learn that the Greek 'christ' refers only to a high priest?

How many other high priests did Josephus call 'christ'? How many of the 'christs' from the Septuagint did he call 'christ'?

He didn't mention many high priests at all.

It doesn't matter that Jesus was not yet the high priest, he was made high priest in the same paragraph, (Context context context).

Where is there any evidence that Josephus used the Septuagint at all. He was supposedly from Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Jews had high contempt for the Septuagint.

You see, if he was referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the 'king of the Jews', he would have been highly critical. You have to remember who is audience was. In other works, he already made the claim that Vespasian was the 'messiah' that the Jews predicted, and he was highly critical about other claims to the throne, such as against Bar kokhba. Because of his other patterns with messianic figures, and his claims about Vespasian (he knew how to cater to patrons), even a neutral reference to any other messianic king figures would be suspect.

[Mithrae]

You see, if he was referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the 'king of the Jews', he would have been highly critical. You have to remember who is audience was. In other works, he already made the claim that Vespasian was the 'messiah' that the Jews predicted, and he was highly critical about other claims to the throne, such as against Bar kokhba. Because of his other patterns with messianic figures, and his claims about Vespasian (he knew how to cater to patrons), even a neutral reference to any other messianic king figures would be suspect.

The Bar Kokhba revolt occured c. 132-135CE, long after Josephus died. This doesn't seem to very accurate knowledge on your part.

Your claim that Josephus "would have been highly critical" of Christian beliefs doesn't seem very persuasive in that light. Called Christians, their founder-figure was generally called "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." If he were to mention the death of Jesus' brother and some others, as leader of the heterodox sect in Jerusalem, how would you expect Josephus to describe it, besides "Jesus who was called Christ"?

Why would you expect him to divert into "highly critical" comments about the offshoot sect?

It doesn't matter that Jesus was not yet the high priest, he was made high priest in the same paragraph, (Context context context).

Ah, it doesn't matter. Wider context. It happened later. That practically proves that Josephus' sole reference to someone 'called Christ' has nothing at all to do with the James brother Jesus who lived in Jerusalem as a leader of the sect called Christians!

He didn't mention many high priests at all.

How many high priests did he mention? I have no idea myself; but you seem to, so I'm curious.

What I do know is that he did mention Onias, the high priest who Jews believe is called messiah (christ) in Daniel 9:26. Since Onias obviously posed no threat to the Roman empire, since Christians believed that the verse refers to Jesus rather than Onias, and since you claim that Josephus "would have been highly critical" of Christian beliefs, isn't it strange that he didn't even call Onias a 'christ'?

Where is there any evidence that Josephus used the Septuagint at all. He was supposedly from Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Jews had high contempt for the Septuagint.

You claimed that 'christ' refers not just to any priest, but to the high priest specifically. I would like you to substantiate that claim, and the Septuagint seems a reasonable starting place given that both it and Josephus refer to individuals called 'messiah' in the Hebrew scriptures (eg. David). If you would prefer to answer my question "Where did you learn that the Greek 'christ' refers only to a high priest?" without mentioning the Septuagint, feel free.

However given that you're starting a certain track record for unsubstantiated claims - some of which (eg. bar Kokhba) are patently false - may I suggest that before beginning more minor tangents like "the Jerusalem Jews had high contempt for the Septuagint," you should at least start evidencing what you've already claimed?



Let's start with your comment about "the problems with it being inserted later." Do you have any evidence about that? It's okay if it was just a throw-away possibility you put out there, I do that too. I also try to make a policy of acknowledging it when I'm called on it (and often when I'm not) We're here to enjoy the debate, not to pretend that we spout truth from every orifice.

[Goat]

You see, if he was referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the 'king of the Jews', he would have been highly critical. You have to remember who is audience was. In other works, he already made the claim that Vespasian was the 'messiah' that the Jews predicted, and he was highly critical about other claims to the throne, such as against Bar kokhba. Because of his other patterns with messianic figures, and his claims about Vespasian (he knew how to cater to patrons), even a neutral reference to any other messianic king figures would be suspect.

The Bar Kokhba revolt occured c. 132-135CE, long after Josephus died. This doesn't seem to very accurate knowledge on your part.

Your claim that Josephus "would have been highly critical" of Christian beliefs doesn't seem very persuasive in that light. Called Christians, their founder-figure was generally called "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." If he were to mention the death of Jesus' brother and some others, as leader of the heterodox sect in Jerusalem, how would you expect Josephus to describe it, besides "Jesus who was called Christ"?

Why would you expect him to divert into "highly critical" comments about the offshoot sect?

You misquote me. I said 'HIGHLY CRITICAL OF Messaienic figures'. I said nothing at all about Christianity.

You are right about bar Kohba. I meant Simon Bar Giora.

If he was going to refer to a leader of a heterodox sect, how about Jesus bar Joseph?

It doesn't matter that Jesus was not yet the high priest, he was made high priest in the same paragraph, (Context context context).

Ah, it doesn't matter. Wider context. It happened later. That practically proves that Josephus' sole reference to someone 'called Christ' has nothing at all to do with the James brother Jesus who lived in Jerusalem as a leader of the sect called Christians!

He didn't mention many high priests at all.

How many high priests did he mention? I have no idea myself; but you seem to, so I'm curious.

What I do know is that he did mention Onias, the high priest who Jews believe is called messiah (christ) in Daniel 9:26. Since Onias obviously posed no threat to the Roman empire, since Christians believed that the verse refers to Jesus rather than Onias, and since you claim that Josephus "would have been highly critical" of Christian beliefs, isn't it strange that he didn't even call Onias a 'christ'?
[/quote]

Context.. Because he was taking about 'What james'.

Where is there any evidence that Josephus used the Septuagint at all. He was supposedly from Jerusalem, and the Jerusalem Jews had high contempt for the Septuagint.

You claimed that 'christ' refers not just to any priest, but to the high priest specifically. I would like you to substantiate that claim, and the Septuagint seems a reasonable starting place given that both it and Josephus refer to individuals called 'messiah' in the Hebrew scriptures (eg. David). If you would prefer to answer my question "Where did you learn that the Greek 'christ' refers only to a high priest?" without mentioning the Septuagint, feel free.

However given that you're starting a certain track record for unsubstantiated claims - some of which (eg. bar Kokhba) are patently false - may I suggest that before beginning more minor tangents like "the Jerusalem Jews had high contempt for the Septuagint," you should at least start evidencing what you've already claimed?



Let's start with your comment about "the problems with it being inserted later." Do you have any evidence about that? It's okay if it was just a throw-away possibility you put out there, I do that too. I also try to make a policy of acknowledging it when I'm called on it (and often when I'm not) We're here to enjoy the debate, not to pretend that we spout truth from every orifice.[/quote]

Yes, I do as a matter of fact. Let's look at what Earl Doughty has to say. A very small section of his analysis is

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10 ... 0reference


2. Did Josephus identify James by the brother of Jesus reference? - It is commonly argued that Josephus likes to identify for the readers sake a freshly introduced figure by some sort of explanatory description. This is his first (and only) reference to James, and thus the identification of Jesus as his brother serves this purpose. There are a number of potential flaws in this position.

Even if the observation about Josephus habit is valid, this does not reveal what Josephus may originally have written to identify James. (In a moment I will detail what may be a couple of possibilities.) There is no certainty that the identifying phrase as it stands now must have come from Josephus pen, for he may have described James by some other reference which was subsequently changed by a Christian copyist. That the latter was the case is suggested by the fact that the second part of the extant phrase is suspiciously identical to the one which concludes Matthew 1:16 (ho legomenos Christos: the one called (the) Christ, though the Josephan phrase is in an oblique case: tou legomenou Christou). The same phrase also appears in John 4:25.


This is enough to put a lot of doubt into the text. The fact that the exact same phrase is used in the Gospels is a strong indication of a link, and a copiers gloss (taking a margin note, and putting into the text) is perfectly reasonable explaination.

[Zzyzx]

.
Mithrae,

There is no indication that you can or will debate any topic " but simply appear to be Trolling, I challenge you to DEBATE in a Closely Moderated Head to Head debate on ANY of the topics below from your list -- other than number 8 which may be overstatement because some people evidently appear to believe that they have had a religious experience (or an emotional experience that they attribute to invisible gods or unverifiable religious experience) as their reason for worshiping gods and performing rituals.

I care not whether you claim to be Christian, Pseudo-Christian, Non-Christian, Anti-Christian or any other ism. I challenge you to debate honorably and fairly on any of the topics on which you question me.

I would particularly delight in debating some of the topics. Pick your poison and lets have at it if you are so bold as to try.

And as promised, out of the claims which you made in this post, here is the summary list of the ones which I think are worth providing evidence to support:
1 - that the bible is a single source
2 - that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible
3 - that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias
4 - that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" (Mark)
5 - that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events" (Mark)
6 - that all the epistles are religious promotional writings
7 - that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings
8 - that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods?

Do you accept or decline (right out in front of gods and everybody)?



Do you actually BELIEVE that disciples or apostils wrote the bible tales? Do you believe that they were written at the time of Jesus or soon thereafter? Are you aware of what is accepted by experts who actually study such matters?

Do you attempt to induce others to believe that tales that you believe?

I have not comment regarding anyones personal and private beliefs " that is their business " not mine. However, when they make statements in public, particularly in DEBATE forums, I may question the strange claims that they make.

Questions of my debating potential aside,

Potential?

I should mention that in my second post of this thread, in a paragraph adressed directly to you, I wrote that "I'm not a Christian and enjoy debating as much as the next man..." [/quote]
I often ask people with whom I debate to state their theological position. Most dance rather than answer directly " by saying I am a Christian as though that was specific when there are tens of thousands of different sects; often with strongly differing dogma and ritual.

I encourage readers to wonder why people are coy, cute or evasive about their religious affiliations when they appear to be attempting to debate from that point of view.

Saying I am not a Christian is even broader " since the term can include Atheism, Agnosticism, Ignosticsm, Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, Islam, Buddhism, etc, etc.

I have no objection to Christian sources as evidence " provided they can be verified like all other sources and provided that the source is not cited to support itself (i.e., using bible stories to support bible stories).

Poor comprehension
Imprecise or uncritical thinking

I agree that it is poor comprehension and imprecise or uncritical thinking to use a single source to support itself in debate " which is known as circular reasoning.

My bible is true because it says it is true. Look, chapter one says the same thing as chapter ten " amazing, isnt it?

Some might say that is silly. I merely point out to readers that it is irrational to do so.

I've mentioned several times that the bible isn't a single source.

You are entitled to consider a single source NOT a single source if you wish " since that is ALL you have. Restating your opinion, however, does not convince me (nor, I suspect, does it convince readers).

It's a collection of distinct writings which were canonised (in the case of the NT) through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Describing it as a single source sometimes used to support itself is an imprecise or uncritical way of thinking about it.

You are free to consider of opine that the bible is not a single source " but that is simply your opinion.

In my opinion, the bible is A single book of religious promotional material collected and edited for content by churchmen under government sanction. The process of selection and editing (and any later changes) influences the content and reflects the goals (whatever they may have been) of the editors.

If a document is prepared by a committee to promote a product and the committee selects writings and testimonials by various people to include (and rejects others that do not reflect favorably upon the product), it is grossly incorrect (in my opinion) to refer to one of the included writings to support another included writing " i.e., chapter four supports chapter one.

If that was done with a commercial product, we would agree that the document was, for all practical purposes, a single source " and did not reflect legitimate independent support.

Exactly the same is true if the product being promoted is religion.

However you've made the claim that 'bible stories' are a single source sometimes used to support itself.

Yes, I note that the bible is a BOOK " compiled and edited by promoters of religion (bishops, etc) under government edict.

I am not surprised that the writings chosen for inclusion in the religious promotional material actually promote the religion. That seems to escape the scrutiny of many bible believers I debate. Do you think it strange?

You make the claim more clearly later in your post - "the evidence you cite is simply more tales from the same source as the one you are trying to support or defend."

Yes, I point that out rather frequently when religionists make that blunder " over and over as new people join the forum and attempt to use the same old tired arguments.

Please provide evidence to support your claim that the bible is a single source.

I have " many times and do so above.

Christian churchmen who selected and edited manuscripts that became know as the bible are likely to have had at least a SLIGHT pro-Christian bias.

Please provide evidence that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible. Please explain what you mean by 'bias' and provide evidence that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias.

Do you ask this as legitimate debate " items which you doubt are correct?

I am confident that readers understand (even if you do not) that asking for documentation of items with which you agree or do not doubt is a dishonorable debate tactic. I am accustomed to that tactic " but am not sure that readers have encountered that particular dishonesty.

I will respond as though you actually did not know how what has come to be known as the bible was produced.

After Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire during the fourth century, various committees of churchmen were convened by order of the emperor to consolidate the religion. Those committees were composed of bishops and other officials representing Christianity. They gathered and edited writings and eventually produced a text " the original of which is not available (but copies of which are in existence " the earliest of which (complete but in scattered pieces), the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from late fourth century. Are you aware of this bible history? Do you dispute its accuracy?

Since the churchmen involved in the committee work were high officials of the Roman Catholic Church, it is not a stretch to suggest that they were Christians " or that they might have at least a slight bias in favor of Christianity.

Do you dispute any of this? Did you already know what I have presented?

Would you care to try to defend a claim that James the brother of Jesus referred to the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth " the miracle worker?

Poor comprehension

I doubt that it is necessary to repeatedly call readers attention to your poor comprehension. Trust that they can discern and discriminate.

You ARE aware that hundreds or thousands of views of these threads occur over years, arent you? I am quite aware, and encourage bible believers and proponents of literal interpretation of bible tales to continue to proclaim that donkeys converse with humans and dead bodies of gods come back to life.

I haven't made any claims about working miracles. However my last post[ very clearly has a defence of the claim that Josephus makes reference to the biblical James and Jesus.

I see nothing in your argument that ties the name Jesus to the legendary Jesus of Nazareth of biblical tales. Can you point that out to readers?

Are you aware that the authenticity of Josephus Testimonium Falvium is disputed by reputable scholars and theologians?

Was Jesus a common name in the era of bible tales? (Note that the name is not uncommon among Spanish-speaking people " pronounced hay suse.

He [Paul] CLAIMS to have met Jesus in a vision " and does not, evidently, claim to have known him in person. If that is true, he wrote tales of Jesus from HEARSAY (something heard from others).

Is THAT what you consider real world evidence? Hearsay?

Poor comprehension
Straw-man

Agreed that it is poor comprehension to consider hearsay as valid evidence.

When you cannot address the issues raised, accuse the opposition of poor comprehension.

I mentioned Paul specifically as evidence regarding the existence of James. [/quote]
Were the names James and Jesus unknown other than for the bible characters?

Yes, Paul mentions meeting Jesus in a VISION.

Do you propose that the vision was real? If so, on what evidence do you promote that belief?

Before my comments to Goat in this post, I have never used Paul as evidence regarding Jesus.

So what?

Paul does say that he met James on multiple occasions. That is not hearsay, and your comments here are a strawman.

Can Paul be SHOWN to have known Jesus in person?

If his meeting Jesus is restricted to visions, the authenticity of what is said is (at least in my opinion) VERY questionable.

Do you believe what is said by those who claim to have gained information from visions of gods? If you dismiss other similar tales, why accept Pauls? Give readers a valid reason.

The gospel of Mark is real world evidence ONLY that someone whose identity is not known or is disputed, later given the name Mark, wrote tales about Jesus. Some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers. None are known to be first-hand (actually eyewitness) accounts. The time of writing cannot be established with certainty, but appears to be decades or generations AFTER the supposed events.

Please provide evidence for your claims that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" and that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events."

Here we go again. Are you actually and honestly unaware that many scholars and theologians maintain that copying by gospel writers accounts for some of the word-for-word similarity of phrases used in story telling (that seems to defy alternate explanations " except possibly copying from a common source)?

If you ARE aware that copying is cited by credible scholars and theologians, WHAT is the purpose of asking for documentation (other than debate tactic)?

Are you willing to debate Head to Head defending the notion that bible writers did NOT copy from one another?

Because Mark is the shortest of the gospels, and most of its material is also found in Matthew and Luke, it has often been suggested that Mark was written first and the other two used Mark as a source. There are two major objections to this viewpoint, however:
1. As noted elsewhere, two of the early church fathers, Papias and Irenaus, state that Matthew's gospel preceded Mark's and was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew (though no copy of this original version now survives). Sceptics discount their testimony as 'biased'; but on historical grounds their closeness to the original sources means their evidence should be taken very seriously.
2. Despite the extensive similarities, there are surprising differences between Mark and the other gospels. Some passages appear in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. There are also curious omissions of material found in Mark (e.g. Mark 6:45-8:26; nicknamed the 'great omission', because it so hard to explain why Luke would knowingly have excluded it from his gospel). And, although most of the material in Mark also appears in Matthew, even here there are unexpected omissions, such as Mk 4:26-9, 7:31-7 and 8:22-6, as well as textual differences. In fact, as may be noted, some of the material from these passages appears in neither.
http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/ntdocs6.html

Does this suffice to show that there is reason to conclude that copying (in one direction or other) is seriously entertained and discussed by churchmen, theologians and scholars " or do you continue in denial?

Are you also actually and honestly not aware that the time of writing of gospels is generally considered by credible scholars and theologians to be not earlier than forty or fifty years after the supposed death of Jesus?

All the gospels and epistles are religious promotional writings " gathered and combined by religious people into a compiled and edited text that is religious promotional material.

Please provide evidence for your claim that all the epistles are religious promotional writings. (By the way, in the interests of convenience, I'll put all these claims you've made into a list at the end of my post.)

The term promote as I use it is defined as: to contribute to the growth, enlargement, or prosperity of : FURTHER, ENCOURAGE (Merriam Webster Dictionary).

Writings by bible writers certainly contribute to the growth, enlargement or prosperity of Christianity. Do they not? Do they fit the definition?

That you or others may dislike the word promotion characterizing some favored writings does NOT change the definition or the application. Sorry.

It is not surprising to find that papers collected to reflect certain religious views reflect certain religious views " that tales reinforce one another.

Please provide evidence for your claim that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings.

Religious writings WERE collected by church / government committees. Since they were religious writings (gospels and epistles, for instance), the religious content was already in place.

I KNOW that a large percentage of modern folks believe that invisible, undetectable, supernatural gods created the universe and influence human lives (and presumed afterlives) " ALL based upon ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion.

Could you provide evidence for your claim that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods?

The bible is the basis for religious beliefs by a claimed 80% of the US population. Is that not correct?

The bible contains tales of invisible, undetectable, supernatural gods, does it not?

The tales claim that the favored gods created the universe, do they not?

I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true.

Okay, lets apply that to the bible tale of resurrection. What details might we sort out as being true " and how would we learn their truth?

Accounts of the resurrection can be found from Paul, Mark (as the basis for the tales in Matthew and Luke) and John (which has no literary dependance on the synoptics). Common to all accounts are the death of Jesus, that it was on the third day he allegedly rose, and the identity of Peter as the first male witness. John and Mark both agree that the first witness/es were female (very weak testimony, in the ancient world), and that Mary Magdalene was there. They both agree that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. We thus find theories such as the women mistaking the location of the tomb and their grief and/or hallucination giving rise to the resurrection story and perhaps a series of such visions inspiring hope amongst a group in an otherwise overwhelmingly hopeless situation.

I agree that there are TALES in a STORYBOOK that a dead body came back to life.

There are tales of other gods doing something similar. Which are true? Do you believe and offer as truthful the OTHER tales " or do you dismiss them as not truthful?

I do not accept tales in a storybook as evidence that any dead bodies came back to life after days in the grave. Do you have anything other than tales in storybooks to show that such incredible thing happened?

"However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus..."

I do not doubt that the storybook contains tales about its principle characters. So does Gone with the Wind. However, characters of neither tale show up elsewhere in valid records.

The question is meaningless unless you define your terms. What would serve as the evidence you request?

Records aside from tales in a storybook, accounts from wide ranging sources, convergence of evidence from impartial (un-involved) parties, verification by people who were NOT followers / believers / religious fanatics, proof that human bodies can return to life after being dead for days.

What do you have to offer?

Let me guess " you have tales in a storybook " and NOTHING else. Right?

[Mithrae]

Your claim that Josephus "would have been highly critical" of Christian beliefs doesn't seem very persuasive in that light. Called Christians, their founder-figure was generally called "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus." If he were to mention the death of Jesus' brother and some others, as leader of the heterodox sect in Jerusalem, how would you expect Josephus to describe it, besides "Jesus who was called Christ"?

Why would you expect him to divert into "highly critical" comments about the offshoot sect?

You misquote me. I said 'HIGHLY CRITICAL OF Messaienic figures'. I said nothing at all about Christianity.

You are right about bar Kohba. I meant Simon Bar Giora.

Point taken, though you actually said he'd be highly critical of the 'king of the Jews.' My initial response to that was factually incorrect, so I removed it on proof-reading But you imply (correctly, as far as I'm aware) that Josephus' highly critical attitude would be directed towards Jewish political or military aspirants. However Christians viewed Jesus not as a political figure, but as a mystic saviour-god. Whatever objections he would have had to Christian belief and practice, Josephus would not (as in the case of Simon bar Giora) have had any particular need to distance himself and Judaism from a political threat to Rome's authority in Palestine.

And my point stands, even given this correction. In a passage about the change of Roman government and, subsequently, the change of Jewish priesthood, the death of James was merely a catalyst - and the reference to Jesus merely the simplest way to identify James and these 'others' he was killed with. Would you truly expect him to shift into highly critical comments about Jesus who was called Christ? The known wording of the passage is a simple, efficient, unbiased way to convey information to his readers. The biggest reasons to suspect alteration to a passage (after manuscript evidence, for which there is none in this case) are that it isn't simple, doesn't flow very well, or betrays some anomalous bias.

The fact that Josephus nowhere else mentions Christians, their religion or their founder doesn't suggest that it's something he wanted to make a big deal out of.

If he was going to refer to a leader of a heterodox sect, how about Jesus bar Joseph?

The passage is about James, who was a leader of the sect; Jesus was the founder of the sect, and is used merely to identify James. Josephus could have said James son of Joseph, but that really wouldn't tell his readers anything, would it? Mentioning his brother not only identifies this James very clearly, it also helps explain why the priests wanted him and these 'others' dead. Calling him James son of Joseph would detract from the meaning of the passage. By contrast, calling him James son of Damneus would make the passage much more understandable, if that were who he'd meant. Though there'd still be the mystery of who these 'others' were and why they were killed in the first place.

Context.. Because he was taking about 'What james'.

Yes, calling him James son of Damneus would be much clearer. A good number of his readers might have heard about the Christian sect, perhaps even that their founder-figure was called Jesus. Saying that James was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ was only confuse them, if that's not what he meant. How many of his readers would even know that Jewish priests were sometimes called the Hebrew equivalent of 'christ'?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be your contention that he identified James as brother of a Jesus who was not yet a 'christ,' when many of his readers might have heard of a different Jesus who was called Christ; yet he never clarifies which Jesus who was called 'christ' he meant, never explains exactly what 'christ' means, nor otherwise makes the connection clear between James and the son of Damneus. Gotta say, that's a pretty convoluted theory. Particularly given that he never calls any other high priest 'christ'!

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp10 ... 0reference
Even if the observation about Josephus habit is valid, this does not reveal what Josephus may originally have written to identify James. (In a moment I will detail what may be a couple of possibilities.) There is no certainty that the identifying phrase as it stands now must have come from Josephus pen, for he may have described James by some other reference which was subsequently changed by a Christian copyist. That the latter was the case is suggested by the fact that the second part of the extant phrase is suspiciously identical to the one which concludes Matthew 1:16 (ho legomenos Christos: the one called (the) Christ, though the Josephan phrase is in an oblique case: tou legomenou Christou). The same phrase also appears in John 4:25.

This is enough to put a lot of doubt into the text. The fact that the exact same phrase is used in the Gospels is a strong indication of a link, and a copiers gloss (taking a margin note, and putting into the text) is perfectly reasonable explaination.

As Doherty notes, it's a similar phrase, in a different case. And that is only found once in the bible. It's not a creedal formula, so as to appear specifically Christian in origin. Ultimately, there's only so many ways in which a Jewish historian could refer to the brother of Jesus, and this is pretty much the most simple and obvious, in my opinion. The co-incidence that the author of Matthew used a similar phrase doesn't mean a great deal; indeed the fact that this hypothesised Christian scribe didn't use a more common, creedal identification for Jesus is more unusual than that resemblance.

In fact, having read Doherty's comments on the subject before, I was struck by how not only does he provide no evidence besides this resemblance to a single line from the bible, he in fact theorises some different phrase which Josephus supposedly wrote and was replaced! Replacement of an existing phrase would be even more unlikely than inserting a new one, since the 'original' phrase would show that a marginal note was nothing more than that.

And above all, Doherty doesn't make any comments on the possibility that within 150 years between the original and Origen, two different Christian scribes happened to work on the same 'lineage' of manuscripts for Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, both making mistakes so as to incorporate this new phrase into the text, instead of, for example, working on Paul's letters or the gospels.

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

There is no indication that you can or will debate any topic " but simply appear to be Trolling, I challenge you to DEBATE in a Closely Moderated Head to Head debate on ANY of the topics below from your list -- other than number 8 which may be overstatement because some people evidently appear to believe that they have had a religious experience (or an emotional experience that they attribute to invisible gods or unverifiable religious experience) as their reason for worshiping gods and performing rituals.

I care not whether you claim to be Christian, Pseudo-Christian, Non-Christian, Anti-Christian or any other ism. I challenge you to debate honorably and fairly on any of the topics on which you question me.

I would particularly delight in debating some of the topics. Pick your poison and lets have at it if you are so bold as to try.

And as promised, out of the claims which you made in this post, here is the summary list of the ones which I think are worth providing evidence to support:
1 - that the bible is a single source
2 - that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible
3 - that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias
4 - that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers" (Mark)
5 - that "the time of writing... appears to be decades or generations after the supposed events" (Mark)
6 - that all the epistles are religious promotional writings
7 - that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings
8 - that ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion is the only basis (or even the main basis) for a large percentage of modern folks' belief in gods?

Do you accept or decline (right out in front of gods and everybody)?

You made numerous claims in your post. Those which I considered important to the topic or your argument, I requested evidence for - as you are famous for doing. And instead of providing any evidence, you have accused me of trolling and challenged me to have a head-to-head debate about them?

As you note, your claim in #8 was considerably over-stated at best. #1, #4 and #6 are similarly lacking claims, in my opinion. But since, with the possible exception of #5, the others are all fairly central to your stated views on the topic, it would surely be constructive to get a feel for how you know those things and to what extent they have the influence which you may believe.

Given the extensive list of requirements you require before venturing an opinion on a written text, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that 90% of all recorded history simply doesn't have enough evidence for you to make any claims on. How then could you know anything about Christian churchmen selecting and editting manuscripts which became known as the bible? Or, even more absurdly, how could you know about their motivation for doing so (#7)?

When you make such a persistent habit of calling people to task regarding evidence for their claims, it doesn't give a good impression that you seem so reluctant to give evidence for your own.

I have not comment regarding anyones personal and private beliefs " that is their business " not mine. However, when they make statements in public, particularly in DEBATE forums, I may question the strange claims that they make.

But when someone questions your claims, you accuse them of trolling. Got it.

Please provide evidence that Christian churchmen selected and editted manuscripts that became known as the bible. Please explain what you mean by 'bias' and provide evidence that these churchmen were likely to have had a pro-Christian bias.

I am confident that readers understand (even if you do not) that asking for documentation of items with which you agree or do not doubt is a dishonorable debate tactic. I am accustomed to that tactic " but am not sure that readers have encountered that particular dishonesty.

I don't doubt that amongst Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries a great deal of activity occurred with regard to selecting the texts which were to be regarded as scripture. I don't doubt that in the 4th century, these decisions were finalised and officialised. I do doubt how much 'selection' went on in the 4th century, and how much 'editting' occurred at any time. And I question to what extent any individual's 'bias' influenced the whole process.

So my reasons for asking you to provide evidence are two-fold. Firstly, to establish exactly what extent of 'bias,' 'selection' and 'editting' there is evidence for. And secondly, just as importantly, as you yourself commented:
"Theories or explanations are CRITICALLY examined by people other than the originators or their organizations and supporters. Opponents are invited to poke holes in (find defects in) theories presented."
The formalisation of the biblical canon seems to be an important part of your process for assessing the reliability of ancient Christian evidence. Moreover, you have listed numerous specific requirements you'd like before offering opinions on any given text (eg. the author's definite identity, biases, track record for accuracy etc.). One can't help but wonder how much of that information is known for your sources regarding the process of formalisation for the biblical canon. Does your evidence for this important part of your scepticism meet your own criteria?

If not, you're doing little more than assuming that such-and-such a formalisation process took place, and on the basis of that assumption, discrediting several distinct sources of evidence for the topic in question. Please don't accuse me of dishonesty just because you don't understand the importance of internal consistency in a viewpoint.

After Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire during the fourth century, various committees of churchmen were convened by order of the emperor to consolidate the religion. Those committees were composed of bishops and other officials representing Christianity. They gathered and edited writings and eventually produced a text " the original of which is not available (but copies of which are in existence " the earliest of which (complete but in scattered pieces), the Codex Sinaiticus, dates from late fourth century. Are you aware of this bible history? Do you dispute its accuracy?

So what are your sources for all this information?
1. Who, exactly, is the person making the claim?
2. What is their record and reputation for veracity and accuracy?
3. What are their potential biases (i.e., are they closely associated with the claim)?
4. What, exactly, did they say (preferably in their original documents)?
5. Where did they get their information?

Or are you all but making assumptions about these committees, consolidation and (above all) editting of the texts?

I see nothing in your argument that ties the name Jesus to the legendary Jesus of Nazareth of biblical tales. Can you point that out to readers?

Are you aware that the authenticity of Josephus Testimonium Falvium is disputed by reputable scholars and theologians?

Perhaps you should re-read my posts then. Goat can see how Josephus' comment about "Jesus who was called Christ" bears a resemblance to the biblical Jesus, even if he argues that it refers to a different Jesus instead. It's strange that you can't see it. Then again, if you haven't spotted the several occasions on which I've stated my views about the TF, it's really not all that surprising. Pretty much along the same vein as not realising what I meant when I said I'm not a Christian.

I mentioned Paul specifically as evidence regarding the existence of James.

Were the names James and Jesus unknown other than for the bible characters?

Yes, Paul mentions meeting Jesus in a VISION.

Do you propose that the vision was real? If so, on what evidence do you promote that belief?

...and again. Try to read it again, more slowly this time. I mentioned Paul as evidence regarding the existence of James. James. Not Jesus. James. How can you possibly hope to understand anything about ancient texts, when you can't understand what I've written?

Paul does say that he met James on multiple occasions. That is not hearsay, and your comments here are a strawman.

Can Paul be SHOWN to have known Jesus in person?

James. He met James, not Jesus. James.

James.

The gospel of Mark is real world evidence ONLY that someone whose identity is not known or is disputed, later given the name Mark, wrote tales about Jesus. Some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers.

Please provide evidence for your claims that "some of the tales appear to have been copied from other writers"...

Here we go again. Are you actually and honestly unaware that many scholars and theologians maintain that copying by gospel writers accounts for some of the word-for-word similarity of phrases used in story telling (that seems to defy alternate explanations " except possibly copying from a common source)?

I'm aware that the great majority of scholars and theologians maintain that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark. You have claimed, by contrast, that Mark appears to have copied from other writers.

Are you also actually and honestly not aware that the time of writing of gospels is generally considered by credible scholars and theologians to be not earlier than forty or fifty years after the supposed death of Jesus?

I would like to see your evidence for that claim. You don't just accept it on faith, do you?

All the gospels and epistles are religious promotional writings " gathered and combined by religious people into a compiled and edited text that is religious promotional material.

Please provide evidence for your claim that all the epistles are religious promotional writings. (By the way, in the interests of convenience, I'll put all these claims you've made into a list at the end of my post.)

The term promote as I use it is defined as: to contribute to the growth, enlargement, or prosperity of : FURTHER, ENCOURAGE (Merriam Webster Dictionary).

Writings by bible writers certainly contribute to the growth, enlargement or prosperity of Christianity. Do they not? Do they fit the definition?

That's a fairly sound definition. It makes your corporate promotional analogy inaccurate of course, since that follows the definition "Advertising; publicity" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/promotional).

It is not surprising to find that papers collected to reflect certain religious views reflect certain religious views " that tales reinforce one another.

Please provide evidence for your claim that these papers were collected to reflect certain religious views, rather than (for example) the religious views being based on those writings.

Religious writings WERE collected by church / government committees. Since they were religious writings (gospels and epistles, for instance), the religious content was already in place.

Yes, they were collected into a canon of scripture starting from the 2nd century (without government involvement, or any formal commitees). My question is whether you believe that they were collected in order to match certain, previously defined religious views.

When I look at a high school biology textbook, I don't say "Well that was all put together just to reflect the editors' evolutionary views." I recognise that the editors' evolutionary views are based on their belief in the reliability of the theories, experiments and peer-reviewed articles referenced in the book. There were many different sects and variations of Christian belief, and many adherents of them were as interested in religious 'truth' as we are in scientific truth. Was it the case that various people ended up believing some documents to be the best sources of religious 'truth,' and collected those most 'reliable' documents into the canon of scripture?

The bible is the basis for religious beliefs by a claimed 80% of the US population. Is that not correct?

I don't know the statistic off the top of my head, but I'll take your word for it as far as the percentage goes. The bible is a basis for many Americans' religious doctrine and practice, certainly. But your comment was about belief in gods generally, not any specific doctrines and practices associated with a given religion. As you've acknowledged, one significant basis for belief in gods are the spiritual experiences which some people claim to have had. In my opinion, the other two main reasons are indoctrination by parents/society, and simply a sense of the greatness/complexity of the universe and an aversion to believing that it's all some cosmic accident. In my opinion, the ancient tales by storytellers and promoters of religion you mention are not at all a major basis for belief in gods. It's a minor point stemming from a trivial comment of mine, but it's worth considering whether your views on religious psychology are actually accurate - and if not, how accurate your views on the motivation of ancient scribes, bishops and so are likely to be.

I don't know about you, but I'd just ignore the myth and try to sort out which of the mundane details are true.

Okay, lets apply that to the bible tale of resurrection. What details might we sort out as being true " and how would we learn their truth?

[blah blah blah] We thus find theories such as the women mistaking the location of the tomb and their grief and/or hallucination giving rise to the resurrection story and perhaps a series of such visions inspiring hope amongst a group in an otherwise overwhelmingly hopeless situation.

I do not accept tales in a storybook as evidence that any dead bodies came back to life after days in the grave. Do you have anything other than tales in storybooks to show that such incredible thing happened?

You simply don't get the point, do you? If you still don't understand that I neither believe nor argue for a resurrection, frankly you really shouldn't be embarrassing yourself by posting here. It was your original question, for crying out loud!

Is it your position that believing such a founder-figure 'may' have existed is reasonable without evidence? Perhaps it's even reasonable to believe that he did exist without evidence? If not, then what exactly (a couple of examples, if you want) would you consider sufficient evidence to reasonably justify belief that such a founder-figure did exist?

I remind you that you asked the question:
"However, can the bible be shown to contain factual, verifiable information about ANY of the principal characters, to wit Jesus..."

The question is meaningless unless you define your terms. What would serve as the evidence you request? What hypothetical scenario/s would provide evidence to reasonably justify belief?

Records aside from tales in a storybook, accounts from wide ranging sources, convergence of evidence from impartial (un-involved) parties, verification by people who were NOT followers / believers / religious fanatics, proof that human bodies can return to life after being dead for days.

You require "proof that human bodies can return to life after being dead for days" as "evidence to reasonably justify belief that such a founder-figure did exist"?

Honestly mate, I'll look forward to your reply but there's not much room for further discussion with you, to be honest. You apparently don't read what I'm writing, you seem unable to grasp simple arguments (or even answers to your own questions) and, above all, you seem completely boxed in by your anti-fundamentalist mindset. Even in a question about the mere existence of Jesus, you seem unable to avoid thinking about the dead returning to life.

Thankyou for the first part of your answer however, and I'll look forward to seeing how those criteria of evidence are applied to your views about the formation of the biblical canon.