Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305735537' post='2243245']
I don't think that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was one person, but rather a collection of philosophies from many people that were changed added to before being written down, centuries after he was said to have died. I think it might have been based on one real person though but don't know where to draw the line between the person Jesus and the mythical and legendary Jesus in the parts that are not supernatural. As for the miracles, it's too much of a stretch to believe in. I think that they're probably the result of primitive explanations and attributing of natural phenomena to supernatural agents as were very common at the time.
[/quote]


So you reject the scientific and archeological finding of Date regardingthe writing of the Gospels and Apostolic letters? Matthew mark and Luke are all believed to have been written before AD 70, and Acts likely before A.D. 62.
Do you rejectthis time line?

What about the artifacts dating from the 1st century which include the Cross, ( yeah, all that "the early christians where ashamed of the cross " stuff didn't hold up.) and dedications to Yesuah (Jesus) ? Do you reject them as falsified, or just bad science?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305756632' post='2243340']

Yes, the those dark ages, in which the church preserved knowledge not for knowledge's sake but to gain more power and validate their religious theology. The same churches that vehemently opposed and tried to combat the influx of new knowledge that opposed their worldview after the crusades (which planted the seeds for the renaissance) where the Arabs were already practicing science and over turning thinkers that the church couldn't let go of such as Aristotle. Those Dark Ages precisely.
[/quote]


this is one of my pet pieves so I am goin to chime in here a bit.

Aristotle is one of the great thinkers who came in after the Crusades, he was nota remnent, the idea that the Church did not let in new ideas is absurd, Aristotle was new in the west. The renaissance ( though I find that a terribly inappropriate name) was not fought by the Church at all, Scholasticism and Nominalism both came from the influx of older works in the High and Late middle ages, and bot lead to the Renissance.

The myth of arab medicine and scientific advancement is particlarly annoying, Western medicine embraced arabic " knowledge" wholeheartedly. Most historians of Medicine, at least those worthy of the name, now acknowledge that it was this embracing of arab "knowlege" that held back western medicine, Medical doctors in the West were obsessed with Astrology, long after it had fallen out of favor in other fields, precisely because it was in arab Text.

Oh and on the whole, those monks who where doing the preservation of knowedge, were not gaining anything from it except bad eyes.

Not trying to derail the discussion but the various myths which have tainted the History of the West becuase of the Protestant reformations Propaganda campaign just really annoys me.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote] So you reject the scientific and archeological finding of Date regardingthe writing of the Gospels and Apostolic letters? Matthew mark and Luke are all believed to have been written before AD 70, and Acts likely before A.D. 62.
Do you rejectthis time line?

What about the artifacts dating from the 1st century which include the Cross, ( yeah, all that "the early christians where ashamed of the cross " stuff didn't hold up.) and dedications to Yesuah (Jesus) ? Do you reject them as falsified, or just bad science?[/quote]

On what is this based?

[quote]this is one of my pet pieves so I am goin to chime in here a bit.

Aristotle is one of the great thinkers who came in after the Crusades, he was nota remnent, the idea that the Church did not let in new ideas is absurd, Aristotle was new in the west. The renaissance ( though I find that a terribly inappropriate name) was not fought by the Church at all, Scholasticism and Nominalism both came from the influx of older works in the High and Late middle ages, and bot lead to the Renissance.[/quote]

Yeah I realised my mistake, Aristotle was lost to the west and brought back after the Muslim libraries had been plundered by the crusaders. But he still heavily influenced thinking after his books were discovered.

Those are both philosophical schools of thought, and though I like philosophy, it's ability to solve practical problems compared to science, which is based in part on philosophical reasoning, is limited. Don't get me wrong, even though the motivations of the Church were power based, for propaganda, to harbour and increase knowledge to better understand their scriptures after centuries they produced knowledge. Were there any other patrons during those times as productive and as rich as the Catholic Church?

[quote]The myth of arab medicine and scientific advancement is particlarly annoying, Western medicine embraced arabic " knowledge" wholeheartedly. Most historians of Medicine, at least those worthy of the name, now acknowledge that it was this embracing of arab "knowlege" that held back western medicine, Medical doctors in the West were obsessed with Astrology, long after it had fallen out of favor in other fields, precisely because it was in arab Text.[/quote]

Do you have a source for this?

The wiki page on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen#Reintroduction_to_the_Latin_West"]Galen[/url] says:

"Galen's insistence on a rational systematic approach to medicine set the template for [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_medicine"]Islamic medicine[/url], which rapidly spread throughout the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate"]Arab Empire[/url]. Arabic sources, such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakar%C4%ABya_R%C4%81zi"]Rhazes[/url] (Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi 865-925 AD), continue to be the source of discovery of new or relatively inaccessible Galenic writings.[sup][/sup]As the title, [i]Doubts on Galen[/i] by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakar%C4%ABya_R%C4%81zi"]Rhazes[/url] implies, as well as the writings of physicians such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Zuhr"]Ibn Zuhr[/url] (Avenzoar) and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Nafis"]Ibn al-Nafis[/url],[sup][/sup]the works of Galen were not taken on unquestioningly, but as a challengeable basis for further [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method"]inquiry[/url].

A strong emphasis on [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment"]experimentation[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism"]empiricism[/url] led to new results and new observations, which were contrasted and combined with those of Galen by writers such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhazes"]Rhazes[/url], [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_Abbas_al-Majusi"]Ali ibn Abbas al-Majusi[/url] (Haly Abbas), [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_al-Qasim_al-Zahrawi"]Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi[/url] (Abulasis), [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna"]Ibn Sina[/url] (Avicenna), Ibn Zuhr and Ibn al-Nafis. For example, the experiments carried out by Rāzi and Ibn Zuhr contradicted the Galenic theory of humorism, while Ibn al-Nafis' discovery of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_circulation"]pulmonary circulation[/url] contradicted the Galenic theory on the heart."

And


"From the 11th century onwards, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th_century"]Latin translations of Islamic medical texts[/url] began to appear in the West, alongside the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schola_Medica_Salernitana"]Salerno[/url] school of thought, and were soon incorporated into teaching at the universities of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples_University"]Naples[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montpellier_University"]Montpellier[/url]. Galenism now took on a new unquestioned authority, Galen even being referred to as the "Medical Pope of the Middle Ages". [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_African"]Constantine the African[/url] was amongst those who carried out translations of both Hippocrates and Galen from Arabic. In addition to the more numerous translations of Arabic texts in this period, there were a few translations of Galenic works directly from the Greek, such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundio_of_Pisa"]Burgundio of Pisa[/url]'s translation of [i]De complexionibus[/i]. Galen's works on anatomy and medicine became the mainstay of the medieval physician's university curriculum, alongside Ibn Sina's [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canon_of_Medicine"]The Canon of Medicine[/url][/i] which elaborated on Galen's works. Unlike pagan Rome, Christian Europe did not exercise a universal prohibition of the dissection and autopsy of the human body and such examinations were carried out regularly from at least the 13th century. However, Galen's influence, as in the Arab world, was so great that when dissections discovered anomalies in Galen's anatomy, the physicians often tried to fit these into the Galenic system. An example of this is [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondino_de_Liuzzi"]Mondino de Liuzzi[/url], who describes rudimentary blood circulation in his writings but still asserts that the left ventricle should contain air. Some cited these changes as proof that human anatomy had changed since the time of Galen.[sup]"[/sup]

Eventually in the West the part philosophical part experimental data knowledge of Galen was corrected with science after knowledge gathering tools took another leap foward during the renaissance.

It's sort of unfair to blame the arabs for centuries of failing to actually test Galens theories.

[quote]Oh and on the whole, those monks who where doing the preservation of knowledge, were not gaining anything from it except bad eyes.[/quote]

It's not the monks that I'm criticising. They were just doing their jobs and were [i]vitally[/i] important before the printing press.

[quote]Not trying to derail the discussion but the various myths which have tainted the History of the West because of the Protestant reformations Propaganda campaign just really annoys me.[/quote]

What other more common myths are there? Feel free to add...

Edited May 19, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Don John of Austria]

Replying on my phone so this will be short. The biggest myth is that there was a dark ages at all.
That concept was invented, and is inaccurate .

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305763665' post='2243376']
Okay, so government was the wrong word to use, though I don't know what I would use in its stead...Catholicism is not a theocracy because those are bound to national borders and State. Government of influence?
[/quote]

I don't think that 'government' was necessarily wrong, but it definitely has implications that just don't apply to Catholicism. Most other major world religions are up to their eyeballs in government or societal coercion, and have been since their early days.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
I actually think that there's a high chance of there being a historical Jesus who lived roughly 2000 years ago, but I'm questioning whether what the bible attributes to him as being all his or a mix between compilation of various philosophers (even converts possibly) invented stories and misrepresentations.

I hold this view because there are no historical sources of Jesus written down during the time he lived, at least none that I'm aware of, and the bible was compiled out of many documents and translations. In that situation there is lost information and skewing of information, even if unintentional. Sort of like a game of Chinese whispers.
[/quote]

There were actually several contemporaries of Jesus that wrote about Him. Unfortunately, I never bothered to do much research on them beyond knowing that they exist. I believe Josephus was the name of one such contemporary who was a non-believer. Undoubtedly there are others on this board that could give you more information about them; Don John seems to be moving that direction.

Today there are a lot of people that equate ancient civilizations with the game of 'telephone' but this really isn't a fair comparison. People would tell the same stories over and over so that everyone in the community would memorize every word. It's more similar to nursery rhymes . . . have you ever had the experience of hearing someone recite a nursery rhyme where one word was different than what you are used to hearing? Doesn't it just irk you even though the meaning is the same? I know that I feel like saying, "no, the right way to say it is this..." Similarly, people would not have tolerated changes to things that they considered to be far more important than nursery rhymes. The black death is hundreds of years gone, but if I merely say "ring around the rosy" you know the rest of the words. (And you might know the meaning, as well.)

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
If there was a historical Jesus who did start a bit of a revolution and his message spread like wildfire was it what he wrote down? Did he visit everyplace to preach himself? If it was orally, which most likely it was, then there's bound to be misrepresentations. Maybe someone preaching his message added their twist to it or interpreted it their way but credited it to him etc. Same goes for when, many years later, theologians were compiling the bible.

It's similar to the debate surrounding whether Homer was one person, if you accept that there was someone called 'Homer'. It's known that the Iliad and Odyssey were memorised and told to the public before being written down.
[/quote]

Again, you're resorting to the telephone fallacy. The apostles would go to towns and stay there for weeks answering questions and clarifying before moving on. After they moved on, they would remain in contact with believers via written documents. Some of these written documents later became a part of the New Testament as it exists today. Also, these documents don't typically reference long dead people, but people that are still alive at the time of the writing. This allowed those discerning whether Christianity is true or not to verify with the original sources themselves. (Granted, it would typically be a long journey to Israel to verify, but it could be done, and undoubtedly would be done.) Many of the evangelizers were themselves these firsthand eyewitnesses.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
What other more common myths are there? Feel free to add...
[/quote]

Some of the most common:
The inquisitions were exceedingly harsh by the standards of the day. (People would commit heresy so that they could be tried by the inquisitors rather than the state governments.)
Hundreds of people would die every year at the hands of inquisitors. (The brutal Spanish inquisition averaged about 2% executions, only one torture session was allowed, no blood could be spilled, and no maiming could occur. Prior to any trial, the accused could name any 'mortal enemies' and if those who accused them of heresy were among the list, they would be set free. By contemporary standards this was exceptionally tolerant.)
The Catholic Church claimed you could buy your way into heaven. (A misreading of the way indulgences work, probably in part due to corrupt priests.)
You could buy indulgences. (No doubt encouraged by corrupt priests. For an indulgence to 'work' one must be in the correct spiritual posture.)
The Crusades were anti-Semitic.
The Church is to blame for any brutality in the Crusades.
The Crusades were about conquest.
The Crusades were about wealth.
The Church persecuted Galileo.
The Church is against science. (Catholics invented the scientific method as a means of learning about the nature of God.)

Peace,
Joe

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1305817831' post='2243583']
There were actually several contemporaries of Jesus that wrote about Him. Unfortunately, I never bothered to do much research on them beyond knowing that they exist. I believe Josephus was the name of one such contemporary who was a non-believer. Undoubtedly there are others on this board that could give you more information about them; Don John seems to be moving that direction. [/quote]

Josephus was born in around 40 C.E. and so was not an eye-witness, though him being a non believer and not motivated towards Christianity to be more credible in my view. Supposing it was Jesus he was writing about, by the time he would start writing the story or myth of Jesus would've already been circulating for years. The question is: what did he and others that wrote of early Christianity record?

I'll wait for Don John to add what he considers to be evidence too.

The things is, I make these assumptions based on what I know (I prefer to lean towards what is known that what is not), and I know that people make mistakes, which is why I find written contemporary and preferably neutral (not motivated towards Christianity) evidence to be important. It's for the same reasons that eye-witness testimonies are not the most important in a court of law for instance. If you look up how common perceptual errors are, and how faulty and selective our memories are too, then you'll see why people call the passing on of oral traditions to be the telephone game. Nobody is immune to making mistakes, and so both anecdotal and unwritten evidence are not trustworthy.

The thing is, how do you know that the stories they memorised were accurate if a lot of what was written down was the story told by the last person to receive the message in a game of telephone? Who even was that last person? What about the translations of translations of translations?

Assuming there is a historical Jesus, which I actually think might have existed, then the next question is: is what the bible says about him really credited to him? Are there passages in the Bible that were added by theologians many years after the Church was formed?

What about all the factual inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible? What about the question of whether or not Nazareth existed at the time when Jesus was supposedly born?

What do you guys think about the similarities between Jesus and other Christus (Greek for 'messiah') during those times, even written about by Josephus?

Edited May 19, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Don John of Austria]

Been very busy today sorry. will get back to you with more but qucikly...


I was thinking of the actual ossuaries and such that had such inscriptions which have been dated to the first century, I'll see if I can find a link on the internet, I don't have a scholarly jurnal I can referance off the top my head.


There is numerous methods used to test date the text, textual analysis is on, events the authors seem to know about vs others ( for example the destruction of the Temple, The Gospels take pains to show that it is metaphorical, but it actually happened in AD 70, it would have been much more effectvie to show it as real and indicate that Jesus was fortelling the future) Among other things, like the deaths of Certian apostles for which we have other records.


reference to them in works of authors we now the date of from other means. If someone in AD 12 is referancing the gospel of mark as a well known old work, it indicates that indeed it was writen well before then.


The Epistles are probably earlier than most of the other works, becuase they do not referance,or indicate knowledge of any gospels.

By the later half of the second century all four of the gospels ( among others not included in scripture) were well known to exist and to have existed since the time of te apostles ( I know, we trust that J.Caesar was alive when they said he was, but how can we trust those silly romans to know when books were written).


More later.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305735537' post='2243245']
I don't think that Jesus as depicted in the Bible was one person, but rather a collection of philosophies from many people that were changed added to before being written down, centuries after he was said to have died. I think it might have been based on one real person though but don't know where to draw the line between the person Jesus and the mythical and legendary Jesus in the parts that are not supernatural. As for the miracles, it's too much of a stretch to believe in. I think that they're probably the result of primitive explanations and attributing of natural phenomena to supernatural agents as were very common at the time.
[/quote]
That may be what you think, but the evidence is entirely to the contrary.

Practically all reputable historians agree that there was a real historical person Jesus Christ who founded the Christian religion, even if they do not believe He was actually the Son of God. While the idea that the Gospels were written centuries after the life of Christ (and even that a historical Jesus did not exist at all) may have been popular with atheists 100 years ago, we now plenty of both archeological and textual evidence that the four canonical Christian Gospels were originally written within the first century AD - well within living memory - and that the traditional Christian dating of the Gospels is in fact entirely plausible. (Of course, that hypothesis has been revived by present-day internet pop-atheists, but lacks any scholarly credibility.) We have a fragment of the Gospel of John (regarded by believers and non-believers alike to be the last of the four Gospels to be written) in Egypt dated to the early 2nd century, showing that copies were already in wide circulation at that point.
We also have a number of other Christian writings from the first two centuries after Christ.
Unbelievers still claim, of course, that the miraculous events in the Gospel were made up, but they can no longer credibly claim that the "myth" of Christ recorded in the Gospels had centuries to build up and evolve.

The Gospels take place in a very specific time and place, and many specific actual persons and places from that time are mentioned, which would not likely be familiar to someone writing centuries later. These details strongly suggest the Gospels were written eyewitness accounts, as Church tradition has always taught, and is explicitly stated in the Gospels themselves.
Unlike pagan myths, they did not take place in some vague, unspecified distant past, but in a specific time and place not long before the Gospels were written.

And there is absolutely nothing in the Gospels themselves not in the outside historical record to suggest that Jesus Christ never lived, or was a fictional combination of many different people.
There is no reason why persons close to the time of Christ was willing dedicate and give up their lives for a fictional person.
And none of the early opponents of Christianity ever denied Jesus's existence. Nor did the Jewish opponents of Christ deny His miraculous powers; they instead contributed them to demonic origin.

Looking at the evidence, we have to conclude that the authors of the Gospel and the early Christians were either liars and frauds (yet inexplicably willing to give up their lives to perpetuate their fraud), were all insanely delusional, or that they were telling the truth.
The latter shouldn't be ruled out lightly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305756632' post='2243340']
Socrates, one thing you're doing repeatedly is equating what I'm saying with 'darwinistic materialism' when I've repeatably said that this topic has nothing to do with natural sciences and biological evolution. Another is that you keep bringing it to specifically religious beliefs, when this is about any idea belief in general, not limited to religions which cause people to do certain things that can in turn be beneficial for the group. I'm putting an emphasis on beliefs because this is a religious forum and I thought it would be interesting. This is a topic of non materialistic social science: cultural evolution. You said that you see social sciences as BS, and so we have nothing more to talk about there. I'm assuming you haven't even watched any of the videos or read the links I've posted for you to keep attacking a straw man position . . .
[/quote]
I'll respond to this when I get a chance - which could be a few days.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305843104' post='2243676']
That may be what you think, but the evidence is entirely to the contrary.

Practically all reputable historians agree that there was a real historical person Jesus Christ who founded the Christian religion, even if they do not believe He was actually the Son of God. While the idea that the Gospels were written centuries after the life of Christ (and even that a historical Jesus did not exist at all) may have been popular with atheists 100 years ago, we now plenty of both archeological and textual evidence that the four canonical Christian Gospels were originally written within the first century AD - well within living memory - and that the traditional Christian dating of the Gospels is in fact entirely plausible. (Of course, that hypothesis has been revived by present-day internet pop-atheists, but lacks any scholarly credibility.) We have a fragment of the Gospel of John (regarded by believers and non-believers alike to be the last of the four Gospels to be written) in Egypt dated to the early 2nd century, showing that copies were already in wide circulation at that point.
We also have a number of other Christian writings from the first two centuries after Christ.
Unbelievers still claim, of course, that the miraculous events in the Gospel were made up, but they can no longer credibly claim that the "myth" of Christ recorded in the Gospels had centuries to build up and evolve.

The Gospels take place in a very specific time and place, and many specific actual persons and places from that time are mentioned, which would not likely be familiar to someone writing centuries later. These details strongly suggest the Gospels were written eyewitness accounts, as Church tradition has always taught, and is explicitly stated in the Gospels themselves.
Unlike pagan myths, they did not take place in some vague, unspecified distant past, but in a specific time and place not long before the Gospels were written.[/quote]

First off, I'm really wondering who you choose to call 'reputable historians' here, because a quick internet search can turn up a lot of theologians and biblical scholars (far from internet pop-atheists that lack any scholarly credibility) who say that either there was no historical Jesus or that he is part real and part myth. I myself can't discern between who are more credible with that much confidence...are you aware of any atheist biblical scholars that support the Jesus being one person hypothesis? I ask for an atheist scholar because then I know that his motivations are clearly not faith based and more fact based.



[quote]And there is absolutely nothing in the Gospels themselves not in the outside historical record to suggest that Jesus Christ never lived, or was a fictional combination of many different people.[/quote]

What strong extra-biblical references are there? Using the bible to say that the bible is true without good external support isn't a strong argument. On Josephus, who most commonly brought up, it seems like he didn't reference the Jesus Christ of Christianity particularly. I never read any of his works so I may be wrong here, but there are plenty of biblical scholars who no longer use Josephus for their arguments. There are also claims that Josephus never referenced him at all.

I'm going to have to look up physical historical evidence such as acheological digs and escavations. This is going to take some time...

[quote]There is no reason why persons close to the time of Christ was willing dedicate and give up their lives for a fictional person.
And none of the early opponents of Christianity ever denied Jesus's existence. [u]Nor did the Jewish opponents of Christ deny His miraculous powers; they instead contributed them to demonic origin.[/u][/quote]

If they have faith, they might. Faith might not be based on real things. As for the underlined bit, do you have an extra biblical source for this?

[quote]Looking at the evidence, we have to conclude that the authors of the Gospel and the early Christians were either liars and frauds (yet inexplicably willing to give up their lives to perpetuate their fraud), were all insanely delusional, or that they were telling the truth.
The latter shouldn't be ruled out lightly.[/quote]

I don't rule out any of it lightly in accepting that Jesus was [i]one [/i]historical figure, but I don't accept them so quickly either. These ponts are based largely on persuasive appeals.

[quote]I'll respond to this when I get a chance - which could be a few days.[/quote]

Okay.

Edited May 19, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305842390' post='2243669']
I was thinking of the actual ossuaries and such that had such inscriptions which have been dated to the first century,
[/quote]

What inscriptions? I'm not familiar with these.

[quote]I'll see if I can find a link on the internet, I don't have a scholarly jurnal I can referance off the top my head.[/quote]

Thanks, I'd appreciate a link.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]First off, I'm really wondering who you choose to call 'reputable historians' here, because a quick internet search can turn up a lot of theologians and biblical scholars (far from internet pop-atheists that lack any scholarly credibility) who say that either there was no historical Jesus or that he is part real and part myth. I myself can't discern between who are more credible with that much confidence...are you aware of any atheist biblical scholars that support the Jesus being one person hypothesis? I ask for an atheist scholar because then I know that his motivations are clearly not faith based and more fact based. [/quote]


Most historians are agnostic, I didn't post a link earlier becuase I don't wwant to link you to an obviously religious cite, and of course thats what comes up on a quick search.

[quote]What strong extra-biblical references are there? Using the bible to say that the bible is true without good external support isn't a strong argument. On Josephus, who most commonly brought up, it seems like he didn't reference the Jesus Christ of Christianity particularly. I never read any of his works so I may be wrong here, but there are plenty of biblical scholars who no longer use Josephus for their arguments. There are also claims that Josephus never referenced him at all. [/quote] I work on that for you.



However, I was not making any arguement about wether or not the existance of Christian writings are evidence of Jesus as a historical person. Just that if they are ficticous writings, about a conglomerate person, then sucha conglomeration happened over a huge area, among diverse people and very rapidly.

[Don John of Austria]

That post was sitting on my computer for some time... there are extra biblical sources refering to Christians... Tacitus lived in the First century and tells of Neros persecution of the Christians ( some historians contend that the origional was Chrestians which comes from another word, but virtually all serious scholors belive that Chrestians was a common roman mistransliteration of Christian. As far as I am aware no historian taken seriously in the field has aguesd that tacitus was refering to another group.

suetonius who was a little younger than tacitus, but also lived in the first century also makes referance to persecution of the Christians by Nero. He did not mispell it.


Josephus certianly did refer to the early Church, particularly James the Just. Most scholars accept that he refered to Jesus, though some contend that parts of this discription were added later, even most sheptics accept portions as authentic.


Pliny the younger writing in A.D. 110 wrote a letter trajan regarding the Christian problem in his domain ( which I admit escapes me at the moment.)


I'll try and find some scholarly referances for you later.

[xSilverPhinx]

Thanks. I'll look those up.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305828763' post='2243628']
The things is, I make these assumptions based on what I know (I prefer to lean towards what is known that what is not), and I know that people make mistakes, which is why I find written contemporary and preferably neutral (not motivated towards Christianity) evidence to be important. It's for the same reasons that eye-witness testimonies are not the most important in a court of law for instance. If you look up how common perceptual errors are, and how faulty and selective our memories are too, then you'll see why people call the passing on of oral traditions to be the telephone game. Nobody is immune to making mistakes, and so both anecdotal and unwritten evidence are not trustworthy.

The thing is, how do you know that the stories they memorised were accurate if a lot of what was written down was the story told by the last person to receive the message in a game of telephone? Who even was that last person? What about the translations of translations of translations?
[/quote]

It's not fair to continue to pretend that people were playing telephone. These people were making life altering decisions based on what people said and what they saw; they were risking their very lives and social status; do you really think they would do that for a non-credible situation like telephone? People haven't changed that much throughout the millennia; they would have needed to be convinced. You don't do that by having a guy come up and say "Jesus died and rose for you, you should become a Christian," and then move on. They would spend weeks discussing what Jesus' death and resurrection meant, how it happened, who was there, where it happened, and how this changes things for their life.

These were not linear conversations. Just as today you would ask for advice and do research to determine what college, profession, job, city, and benefits would be the best match for you, you would talk with all available resources before changing your way of life permanently. The early Christians would write letters and ask questions of more than just the person who they initially heard about Christianity. It's also worth noting that the early evangelists were sent out in groups of two. If one didn't know the answer, the other probably would.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
Assuming there is a historical Jesus, which I actually think might have existed, then the next question is: is what the bible says about him really credited to him? Are there passages in the Bible that were added by theologians many years after the Church was formed?
[/quote]

Well, there were three different Gospels that substantially match on most points, but with slight variation due to the point of view of the story teller. There doesn't seem to be much anything that substantially contradicts it except that it *seems* unbelievable.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
What about all the factual inaccuracies and contradictions in the Bible? What about the question of whether or not Nazareth existed at the time when Jesus was supposedly born?
[/quote]

You'd need to give me an example of a believable contradiction. Saying that Nazareth didn't exist is a pretty silly idea since people said that Jesus was a Nazarene. (And He wasn't born in Nazareth, but Bethlehem. He then moved to Egypt until the death of Herod, at which point He moved to Nazareth.) Indubitably, the people from the time of Jesus knew their local world better than we know a world that is separated by both time and distance from us. I see no point in exploring whether Nazareth existed or not; neither side could possibly come up with a logically convincing argument: From your perspective, if there was a lie being created, they would have made it credible; from ours, if it was not a town of the time, why did everyone of the time seem to think it was?

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
What do you guys think about the similarities between Jesus and other Christus (Greek for 'messiah') during those times, even written about by Josephus?
[/quote]

You'd have to give an example of what you mean.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx']
I ask for an atheist scholar because then I know that his motivations are clearly not faith based and more fact based.
[/quote]

Be careful claiming that atheists base things on fact; most people don't share your definition of atheist. Agnostics might be more objective, but the average atheist (I'm using the dictionary definition, not the HAF definition) feels a need to rebel, feels oppressed, or has an axe to grind; there can be no logical proof of the position that no god exists, thus atheists are decidedly not logical thinkers. Of course, agnostics are a completely different story.

Peace,
Joe