|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 18:13:50 GMT -8
Granted in all likelihood portions of Josephus' account were later scribal commentaries added in either purposefully or inadvertantly.
The phrases virtually all scholars rule out as authentic are:
if it be lawful to call him a man …He was [the] Christ …
for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him
simply because these comments are too Christian for a pious non-Christian Jew to have uttered.
However, the rest of Josephus's words on Jesus are taken as genuine by the majority of scholars. It was most likely because of Josephus' references to Jesus that whoever tampered with the documents felt particularly encouraged to do so.
But for the sake of this line of reasoning, the Josephus quote was only used as one of several references to Jesus' crucifixion in 1st Century documents.
Should we throw out Josephus altogether, the argument that Jesus was indeed crucified would still be sound, based on the numerous other 1st century references.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 18:19:35 GMT -8
Kevin- the list of sources referred to was just hostile or indifferent sources. We actually have several dozen 1st Century texts that mention the existence of Jesus. Comparing this to references to Atlantis is like comparing apples to oranges; not only were references to Atlantis not first hand but they weren't even second or third hand. Atlantis had been supposed to have been lost for some time, the references to Jesus were references to common, public memory going back mere decades. Let's just take Paul's references to the historical Jesus, written within 20 years of Jesus death. His very matter of fact way of referring to Jesus, without any attempt to defend his historicity, is a powerful indicator that the existence of Jesus was not being debated in his lifetime. Shall I go on, or have you all lost your minds? There are so many better beaches for skeptics to die on that the existence of Jesus!
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 26, 2009 18:59:09 GMT -8
Maybe he was an alien sent from a benign advanced culture (a super clone or something) to teach humanity how to live like civilized people, and we missed the message entirely!! This reminds me of an episode of Star Trek TNG. I will have to dig up the citation...
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 26, 2009 19:32:21 GMT -8
Stop it! What scholars? Are you just appealing to authority here?
HA HA! My diabolical plan is working! One by one, I shall get you to "throw out" references! Not really.
My mind is not lost, but being sharpened, and I agree about the beaches. But, I do believe a man lived named Jesus, much like I believe there was a man named Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. There have just been many legends created about him.
I have a response to this, but I'll tackle it later. I've work to finish up.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 19:32:37 GMT -8
Let's try and stay more on topic, okay?
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 26, 2009 19:54:35 GMT -8
Quoting kirbstomp "My mind is not lost, but being sharpened, and I agree about the beaches. But, I do believe a man lived named Jesus, much like I believe there was a man named Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill. There have just been many legends created about him." This is and interesting point. Think of how much larger than life people can become after their death? Even if it can be historically proven that there was a many named Jesus of Nazereth, That is still a very very very long shot from proving that he is the second pillar of a triune God who created the Universe and that furthermore according to the scripture he was the instrument of creation itself lets look at the Beginning of the Gospel of John "[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. [6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. [8] He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. [9] That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." It to me that we are making quite a leap here. We can prove that yes there was a man named Jesus of Nazereth. We may even be able to prove that he came back from the dead (though I am not conceding that yet until we have more documents) HOWEVER there is the serious possibility of other supernatural forces. If you believe in God, then you believe in powers beyond what our laws of physics can understand. The question then become, can we LINK the fact that there was a man named "Jesus"who was Crucified under Pontious Pilot" and who "rose from the dead" and say that this proves that this same man is quite literally the second pillar of a all powerful triune God and the creative instrument of the same from which everything in existence sprang forth? Just playing devils advocate here...
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 20:04:22 GMT -8
You believe that there was a real Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill???
My point here, and I'll be back with more later, is that the existence and death by crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth are solid historical facts for a myriad of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Aug 26, 2009 20:11:22 GMT -8
To be fair, I also should read Habermas and Licona. Maybe I will pause in this discussion until I do, since that was what the point of this thread originally was.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 26, 2009 20:20:46 GMT -8
I still want to get the link between the "historical fact" of the resurrection and the beginning of the book of John. . .
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 21:22:53 GMT -8
kirbstomp wrote:
An appeal to authority is a shorthand way to skip past the things which aren't worth spending a whole lot of time debating. Should someone quibble, then the evidence can be sifted through. I just don't think Josephus is worth too much debate... and I don't doubt that he does refer in a basic way to Jesus aftering sifting through the pros and cons.
krhagan wrote:
Yes, you're right. There is a long chain of logic between the mere existence of Jesus and Him being the instrument of Creation. So far on this thread the topic has ONLY been to establish the existence and death by crucifixion of Jesus. These are only the first 2 links in a long chain. I'm not suggesting anyone leap to the final conclusion based on just the beginning of this process. I just can't believe we're getting hung up on these basic facts.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 26, 2009 21:28:49 GMT -8
You teach High School. Patience should be one of your great virtues.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Nov 24, 2009 9:06:32 GMT -8
Time to "Resurrect" this thread! I found an interesting essay arguing that the resurrection was myth...some points we have already debated: www.religioustolerance.org/symes01.htmSome quotes: and this just about sums up the gist of the essay: The jury is still out for me on this one, I have yet to read the book you loaned me, Josh, it is next on my list.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Nov 24, 2009 9:12:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 24, 2009 14:20:52 GMT -8
This desparate (though somewhat common as of late) attempt to twist the Pauline understanding of resurrection has been, imo, thoroughly refuted in the works of many, including the magnum opus of that luminary scholar of the Historical Jesus, NT.Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God.
I will relish responding to this when I get a chance to do so sufficiently.
Sorry- that sounds a bit cocky, but I just don't like things that are so demonstrably false getting so much air time.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Nov 24, 2009 15:48:06 GMT -8
Don't get too cocky, as I said, the jury is still out for me. I simply added the link as another opposing source.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 24, 2009 16:32:44 GMT -8
okay, okay I just don't think that view deserves a place at the table of realistic interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 24, 2009 17:20:08 GMT -8
Okay, let me begin my response to the idea that Paul never beleived in or meant to teach a bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Our first stop would be to consider Paul's worldview and the perspectives of his larger society on the subject of the afterlife.
Paul was a trained Pharisee and Pharisees were known for a particular view of the afterlife- their strong assertion that the dead would one day be physically raised with new bodies, at the final judgment.
Paul shared this viewpoint-
Acts 23:
6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." 7When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8(The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)
The Pharisees and the majority of Jews of this time did not envision life after the resurrection to be a bodiless existence, in stark contrast to the Greco-Roman view of the immortal soul that leaves behind the body. Jews believed that God would give them new, uncorruptable bodies at the last day.
Paul never speaks against this view or advocates a Greco-Roman view (which would have been anathema to him). Rather, he argues that Jesus resurrection is the firstfruit of this later bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:22-24). This means that he saw Jesus' resurrection as bodily and in line with the later general physical resurrection.
When Paul speaks of "flesh" he is not talking about "bodies" in general (as if physical bodies are inferior or evil, as the Gnostics believed) but about the corrupted sinful nature manifest in our mortal bodies.
So, when he says that "Flesh and blood" will not inherit the kingdom, he means that we will not take our current, corrupted bodies with us into the kingdom.
Paul's belief is that God will give us new bodies that are beyond current explanation:
Phil. 3:20-21
20But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
John echoed this:
1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
Be back....
|
|