Did the New Testament copy from the Old Testament people say that the Quran copied th

[tradeunionsupporter]

Did the New Testament copy from the Old Testament people say that the Quran copied the Bible welll did the Christians copy from the Jews/Judaism ?

[Weezer]

Did the New Testament copy from the Old Testament people say that the Quran copied the Bible welll did the Christians copy from the Jews/Judaism ?

The New Testament is simply an anthology of Christian texts, many of these texts made references to the Old Testament, said to be inspired by the God of the Old Testament.

The Qur'an did not copy the Bible. Islam tries to distance itself from the texts of Christianity and Judaism because the Qur'an states that these texts were corrupted by men and no longer present their original message.

[Sun at Eight]

Just to expand on (and disagree slightly with) In Utero's comments, there is a lot of debate about the origins of Qu'ranic references (not only Biblical) if you don't believe it was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. Muhammad had a Christian cousin, supposedly, and Jews famously lived in Medina and elsewhere in the peninsula. The Arabian peninsula had Christian communities and it's important to remember that North Africa and the Levant were on the whole Christianized societies, albeit not necessarily in agreement with the Christianity practised at Constantinople (or Rome). In fact, that is one of the most fascinating parts of transmission of the Qu'ran - the diversity of heterodox beliefs that also drew on the same wells as Christianity and Judaism, but were marginalized by history, and appear obliquely in the Qu'ran.

As for your main question, how familiar are you with the New Testament? In Utero's description of it is entirely accurate. The "copying" stuff comes up with the Qu'ran because of having a separate book that is claimed to be directly God's voice with no interference beyond Muhammad remembering what he heard. There are many parts of the Bible in which God is the direct speaker, but even outside of modern Biblical scholarship, traditional Judaism and Christianity recognized more human intervention (even if it's at the level of Moses writing the Torah/Pentateuch...including his own death).

[hatzel]

Those times when it says 'for it is written'...yeah, that is when Jews were citing, if you will, their own teachings. A bit like when academics quote others in their essays...:)

[Ocean Seal]

Those times when it says 'for it is written'...yeah, that is when Jews were citing, if you will, their own teachings. A bit like when academics quote others in their essays...:)
Yeah I never understood, the you "copied me" thing. Its like saying that Mao copied Lenin. They both had different lines of thought Mao's building on Lenin based on certain disagreements that they had, such as the disagreements that the early Christians had with the established Jewish ideology.

[ComradeMan]

Given that many of the first Christians were Jews and they obviously considered Jesus to be the Messiah it's not surprising that their scriptures grew out of their own Jewish religion of the time.

This whole idea of people "stealing" and "copying" is usually only suggested by nationalists and bigots.

[Valdemar]

Did the New Testament copy from the Old Testament people say that the Quran copied the Bible well did the Christians copy from the Jews/Judaism ?

Sorry, but I as reader of both things must inform you that you have no clue what are you talking about.
First read it by yourself or just take a brief look at it.
But if you are too lazy, let me explain to you.

New Testament (as far i can remember) is mainly stories about Christ and his life, his teachings written by his followers- Apostles (Mathew. Mark, Luke, John) which were accepted views-writings of Christ, there are also others.

Old Testament is about God and People, its about their connection and his first teachings, about beginning (Creating world, Adam and Eve etc.) and about Israeli tribes, its travels, slavery, exodus, and search for holy land and belief that one day "Jesus" will come and save us all. (quick summary).

Christians follow both accept both Testaments, but follow New one, as "upgrade" to old beliefs, Jews if I'm not mistaken follow only Old one, as they do not accept that guy who (will) came and save us all was-is Jesus. So they don't accept its teachings and New Testament.

I hope that's somehow more clear to you ? Its not copy, it is whole different things, with new teachings.

Quran on other side is mixture of both, with similar teachings both to Old Testament and New testament, since it emerged after both major religions and took from both of its some things. They also have characters as Moses and Jesus, but Jesus is to them only a Prophet and not The One.
Many say that Quran is totally wrongly interpreted, that correct interpretation is one more likely similar to old and new testament, because first Qurans were written without commas (,) and without commas you can understand arab writings totally written. Depends how you read...

[Valdemar]

Given that many of the first Christians were Jews and they obviously considered Jesus to be the Messiah it's not surprising that their scriptures grew out of their own Jewish religion of the time.

This whole idea of people "stealing" and "copying" is usually only suggested by nationalists and bigots.

Yea totally agree, what if see same God, but only a little bit different, or God is so large, that everyone sees only part of it and not whole ;)

Anyways, we are all humans and we have some universal beliefs, religions are connected, they evolved together, they lived together, so there are similiraties, and we can't blame someone to steal from another... (Jews from Egyptians, Christains from Jews, Muslims from both, but all of them from Zoratrism etc. nonsense)

[ComradeMan]

Sorry, but I as reader of both things must inform you that you have no clue what are you talking about.
First read it by yourself or just take a brief look at it.
But if you are too lazy....

To be fair, I think he was asking the question about what I have also heard said by many others, I don't think he was asserting that position.

We ought to remember too that the pre-Islamic Arabic peoples of Arabia were still culturally and linguistically connected to the same Semitic culture(s) that evolved into Judaism and Christianity. What was scripture and what was common "folklore" (for want of a better word) is not always so easy to define. From a scriptural point of view, Genesis 21, the Arab peoples are descendants of Ishmael "from whom the Lord will make a mighty nation".

[Revolution starts with U]

I find it more interesting to surmise on how much the Jewish religious texts were copied from Akkadian, Sumerian, and Egyptian myths and folklore :D

[hatzel]

I find it more interesting to surmise on how much the Jewish religious texts were copied from Akkadian, Sumerian, and Egyptian myths and folklore :D

Everybody who's anybody knows that the Truth (with a capital T :cool:) had already been partially revealed, if not entirely, to all sorts of people long before the giving of the Torah, and continues to be given to all sorts of people. So of course those sections of the Truth (again with a capital T :cool:) that had been revealed to the Akkadians, Sumerians and Egyptians would also be present in the Truth (third time with a capital T :cool:) as revealed on Sinai :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Everybody who's anybody knows that the Truth (with a capital T :cool:) had already been partially revealed, if not entirely, to all sorts of people long before the giving of the Torah, and continues to be given to all sorts of people. So of course those sections of the Truth (again with a capital T :cool:) that had been revealed to the Akkadians, Sumerians and Egyptians would also be present in the Truth (third time with a capital T :cool:) as revealed on Sinai :rolleyes:

and the moral of this story is never fuck with a Rabbi! :D

[Revolution starts with U]

So why is the Truth revealed to so many different peoples in so many different and conflicting ways? ;)

[ComradeMan]

So why is the Truth revealed to so many different peoples in so many different and conflicting ways? ;)

Because no two individuals are exactly the same carbon copies and everyone has their own interpretation combined with the differences in their situations and geographical environments?

Plutarch: Isis and Osiris - Moralia Volume V : 67 "...for God is not senseless nor inanimate nor subject to human control. As a result of this we have come to regard as gods those who make use of these things and present them to us and provide us with things everlasting and constant. Nor do we think of the gods as different gods among different peoples, nor as barbarian gods and Greek gods, nor as southern and northern gods; but, just as the sun and the moon and the heavens and the earth and the sea are common to all, but are called by different names by different peoples, so for that one rationality which keeps all these things in order and the one Providence which watches over them and the ancillary powers that are set over all, there have arisen among different peoples, in accordance with their customs, different honours and appellations. "
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Isis_and_Osiris*/D.html

[Revolution starts with U]

And again we come full circle to the "if it's different for everybody, what's the need for it in the first place."

[Rafiq]

Well, the construction of the Koran was made using the Bible and Old Testament side by side, which is the only logical conclusion, that is, if you believe that Angels don't exist and they sure as hell didn't visit Mo.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Nope. The New Testament was just a fulfillment of the prophecies present in the Old Testament. Of course Jews dispute this though, believing that Jesus does not fulfill the prophecies. As for the Qur'an, it's a separate text altogether, being viewed as a correction of corruption in the earlier texts. Because of these connections it has similar themes and similar stories.

[LOLseph Stalin]

So why is the Truth revealed to so many different peoples in so many different and conflicting ways? ;)

Different cultural needs is the most likely explanation in my mind. The people at the time needed stuff they could better relate too.

[PhoenixAsh]

The Truth can not be partially revealed. If Truth is partially revealed its not the Truth just part of a bigger picture. Nor can, according to the Bible, the word of God directly given be misinterpreted (its the basis for the Torah and the Bible). Interestingly enough the Summerians had an entire pantheon of Gods. All described in detail including all of their habits, manerism and eating preferences.

Besides from that the timelines of Gilgamesh and the OT & Torah do not add up....so at least one of them must be full of shite ;-)

[hatzel]

...all y'all people labouring under the illusion that a single unified Truth exists...aww, how pre-war of you, terribly sweet :lol:

[PhoenixAsh]

...all y'all people labouring under the illusion that a single unified Truth exists...aww, how pre-war of you, terribly sweet :lol:

I don't...but the three books do...its their basis.

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (John 8:32)”

Which in this instance means the Bible and the Christian religion. Incidentally freedom here means freedom from sin and evil.... In order to obtain that freedom you have to surrender to Gods will, which is suppossed to be more easy and less of a burden.


The Talmud says in Pasechem: "Truth, by definition, is absolute and unequivocal. To speak of 'different truths' is a contradiction in terms." Though...it is also recognized that this Truth has many faces and manifestations because it is subjectively viewed. This subjective manifestation of Truth however does not alter the singular nature of it.

Islam is a little more ambiguous on the matter and says that all truth is Gods truth. On the other hand it also says that:

Now, as for those who have attained to faith, they know that it is the truth from their Sustainer - whereas those who are bent on denying the truth say, "What could God mean by this parable?" It also speaks of the Truth on numerous other occasions.


The foudation of religion is establishing one truth and one truth only: that their doctrine is the word of God. That this word of God is the ultimate truth and can not be doubted nor argued against. As such the word of God is truely the only real Truth.

[ComradeMan]

double post- delete please

[ComradeMan]

I don't...but the three books do...its their basis.

Based of course on at least four interpretations.


“And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (John 8:32)”

Deus veritas est.

The fact that truth is absolute does not imply that those to whom it is revealed are able to perceive of it in its entirety.

As Pilate said to Jesus, "Quid est veritas?" whereupon Pilate turned to the crowd declaring he could find no fault in this man.

[PhoenixAsh]

Based of course on at least four interpretations.

True; but then again each of them claims the other ones do not know the truth. The concept of perception of truth and Truth is a distinction which lies within the subject and is not pertaining to the Truth itself. In otherwords...how we interpret the Truth is in fact and act which has no bearing on the Truth itself.



Deus veritas est. Yes, according to at least four religions it is.



The fact that truth is absolute does not imply that those to whom it is revealed are able to perceive of it in its entirety.

Also true. See above.


As Jesus said to Pilate, "Quid est veritas?" whereupon Pilate turned to the crowd declaring he could find no fault in this man.

It wasn't Jesus who said Quid est veritas but Pilate himself who replied to Jesus's claim that he came to earth to bear witness to the Truth. (john 18:37 & 18:38)

Even more historically accurate he was refering to the accusation Jesus conspired against Rome by inciting tax rebellion....not to the status of Jesus or what he was teaching when he said he could not find fault in Jesus.

[ComradeMan]

It wasn't Jesus who said Quid est veritas but Pilate himself who replied to Jesus's claim that he came to earth to bear witness to the Truth. (john 18:37 & 18:38)

You're quite right on that detail. My bad.... I screwed up the translation! :blushing: Edited accordingly.

But still..... What is truth?

[hatzel]

But still..... What is truth?

Truth is an enigma, inasmuch as it, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist. Or, it may exist, but it isn't universal, and we cannot know it, even if it does exist. So we'd might as well say it doesn't exist. However, it can exist to us individually, and our interpretation can be true, because it would be pointless to claim that our personal understanding of truth isn't treated as true. That doesn't mean that this truth is true to another. As this is the religion section, I could start talking about all those rabbis who said that two (or more) contradicting interpretations of the eternal truth could be equally accurate. But I won't bother with that. Basically we can just say that I come from a tradition rich in hermeneutics and debate of the exact meaning and interpretation of the potential truth, which remains incomprehensible to humanity. There's some quote in the New Testament saying exactly that, I believe, 'no man will ever truly understand whilst still claiming to live' or something vaguely resembling that, suggesting the total unattainability of genuine, universal truth. At least from a human perspective, and I question whether non-human laws and systems, that we cannot comprehend or explain in full detail, deserve to be called truths, even if they function as such...

One ought to remember, coming from a Jewish perspective, that our 'truth,' even before we worry about how exactly we chose to interpret it, or if it even exists, still applies only to the Jewish people, and not to anybody else. Which is a clear sign of non-universalism. And that's a good thing!

[PhoenixAsh]

But then again it does stem from the Treasured People idea. Which basically indicates that Jewish truth counts for the jewish people not only because the other people have a different truth because they are not the chosen people in covenant with God.

[PhoenixAsh]

You're quite right on that detail. My bad.... I screwed up the translation! :blushing: Edited accordingly.

But still..... What is truth?


Welllll....Truth is, according to the Abrahamic religions: God. Besides the Truth of God there may be other truths which do not relate to God directly but they are insignificant in comparison.

To me...truth is what I make of it...

edit....hmmm come to think of it. If truth is what I make of it....and God is Truth and vice versa...I must be God. hmmm.... BOW DOWN BEFORE ME!!!! :D I'll be handing out stone tiles with my laws on them momentarilly.

[hatzel]

edit....hmmm come to think of it. If truth is what I make of it....and God is Truth and vice versa...I must be God. hmmm.... BOW DOWN BEFORE ME!!!! :D I'll be handing out stone tiles with my laws on them momentarilly.

Welcome to the world of (intoxicated) Sufism! As Bayezid Bastami said, "I am G-d, there is no G-d beside me, so worship me." :)

[PhoenixAsh]

I am currently working on a system of tribute. I fogot the rules...but maybe I'll just make those up as I go along....you know...keep everybody guessing. Maintaining power through a lot of infighting and sectarianism concerning what I actually think and want from my loyal worshippers ;-)

edit... I also need a high priest and soem apostels. One of you gets to be executed at one point. But don;t worry....I wont tell you guys which one. ;-)

[tradeunionsupporter]

Thank You for all your answers.

[chimx]

Given that many of the first Christians were Jews and they obviously considered Jesus to be the Messiah it's not surprising that their scriptures grew out of their own Jewish religion of the time.

This whole idea of people "stealing" and "copying" is usually only suggested by nationalists and bigots.

its not that "many" of the first christians were jews, ALL of the first christians were jews. christianity was originally an apocalyptic sect within judaism, which is why all of the new testament, especially the gospels, are deeply tied to the old testament.

[chimx]

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. (John 8:32)”

Which in this instance means the Bible and the Christian religion

Not it doesn't. There was no bible when "John" wrote that gospel. The "bible" didn't even start to become an official compilation until the 4th century.

[Dave B]

Well actually the formation of the basic canonical texts was well under way by the end of the second century.

Justyn the Martyr writing around 120 AD ‘appears’ to be familiar with, and refers to, the four Gospels.

As does Origen writing around 220 AD, and in fact he does an analysis of the Gospel of Matthew quoting chapter and verse, as well as discussing and questioning the appearance of other more dubious texts .

Not only that but an ‘apparently’ neo-platonic bod called ‘Celsum’, from before 200AD, and a vicious critic of the new Christian religion, appears to be completely and perhaps too familiar with the basic gospel text.

Which leads into the other point about plagiarising other religions and the inter relationship of Judiasm with Christianity etc.

What we have to do at this point to understand the following; is to place ourselves in, and imagine, the mindset of the people who lived 2000 years ago as opposed to just scoffing at their nonsense.

For people then the idea of a completely new religion was nonsense, and was about as credible as a sudden change in the physical laws of the universe; as opposed perhaps to a new revelation or more enlightened understanding of them.

The idea of a new (Christian) God suddenly revealing himself at some arbitrary point in history in some insignificant part of the world was ridiculous and couldn’t be taken seriously or explained by any thinking person with an ‘enlightened and rationalist’ neo-platonic’ (all the rave then) intelligence.

That was not to say that religions couldn’t evolve or change, far from it, especially given the general view of the capricious, fickle and whimsical nature of gods and deities.

In fact they would hardly be God’s at all if they were consistent.

So much so it was quite important for Christianity, in order for it to be taken seriously, for it to root itself as an evolutionary change or ‘new covenant’ of an old religion.

As opposed to an immaculate conception.

The gospel documents never seem to pass up an opportunity of describing events as prophesised, or history repeating itself, from the old testament.

Seeking a connection and a historical line of continuity.

And in fact at the time, Celsum’s devastating ‘historical metaphysical materialist’ critique of christianity homed in on that point, as well as others.

Something that Origen attempted to defend in his ‘Contra Celsum’.

Celsum also thought it was absurd that a God would appear as a crappy little carpenter and as a member of the working class.

And that (despite his all knowing powers and general sense of prescience) a God would fall for the old crucifixion practical joke of offering up the thirsty victim a drink from a sponge laced with something tasting horrid.


The intellectual bods of the time had quite a bit of respect for Judaism as it had a well documented historical provenance and form.

And it’s monotheism was just put down to national chauvinism and hubris, whereas in reality the Judaic god was in fact just another delegated local, national and regional deity, probably somewhat embarrassed by the arrogance of his worshippers.

[chimx]

most early christians accepted the 4 gospels, but there is more to church canon than that. the earliest documentation of church leaders expressing an "approved" literature list that matches the new testament of today comes in around the 4th century.

I would also say that many early christian sects were vehemently anti-semetic.

[ComradeMan]

I would also say that many early christian sects were vehemently anti-semetic.

Why? Most of them were Jews or Hellenistic people who lived "around" the Jewish community. I think you are missing the point- they were probably against the emerging/embryonic forms of rabbinical judaism that were emerging due to cult differences as such but would certainly have been very Jewish indeed- so much so that the Romans had difficulty distinguishing at times.

[chimx]

see for example marcionites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I recently discovered "The Resistance To Christianity" by Raoul Vaneigam (I discovered it from research inspired by this thread). Vaneigam says (among a lot of other things) that the historic Jesus was a fictional composite of several "saviours" in the Essene tradition and that what evolved into Christianity was a composite of Essene sects, absorbing other movements of the time.The historic Jesus seems to have been created around the Second Century. Gnoticism isn't a later heretical divergence from Christianity but was implicit in the very origins of what became Christianity.(Elaine Pagels seems to make a similar point).

If anyone is interested

http://www.notbored.org/resistance-28.html

I couldn't stop reading it.

BTW There's a theory that the Gospel of Thomas actually is the "Q Document".

Interesting stuff.

[chimx]

that doesn't really jive with the historical evidence, considering the gospels were written during the middle of the first century. plus the OG historian Josephus wrote briefly about jesus in his works.

[Dave B]

There are two references to a ‘Jesus’ in Josephus the first is accepted as a forgery and insert by christian copyists.

There is also an argument that the second one may have been tampered with as well eg at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

I did actually do it before on this list.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/jesuss-socialism-t95454/index8.html?t=95454&page=8


not looked at your essene link but I am fairly familiar with it and they do appear to be proto christians.

The gospel of Thomas isn’t the so Called Q document I think and it is available.

The oldest claimed new testament fragment is here in Manchester of all places from John and contentiously dated at somewhere around 150AD

[ComradeMan]

There are two references to a ‘Jesus’ in Josephus the first is accepted as a forgery and insert by christian copyists.

Really? I've heard controversy but was not aware there was consensus.


There is also an argument that the second one may have been tampered with as well eg at;

Well there is always going to be an argument- does mean it's false
though.

References are also found in Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius.


The oldest claimed new testament fragment is here in Manchester of all places from John and contentiously dated at somewhere around 150AD

I thought it was the albeit controversial 7Q-5 fragment of the Gospel of Mark found at Qumran and dated around 50 CE/AD - 70 CE/AD.

[Islamosocialist]

I wouldn't use the term copied, TradeUnionSupporter. This is very simplified (and consequently not entirely accurate, but certainly close):

- The Jews were first, and their Old Testament is the foundation of the world's two biggest religions today.

- The Christians were followers of the Jewish man Jesus of Nazareth. They have the New Testament, which they believe expands on the Old Testament. Together, these books are the complete word of God to them.

- The Muslims were followers of Muhamed. We have the Old Testament, the New Testament, and additional word of God in the Koran. Together, to us, this is the complete word of God, building on the previous two.

But, Christians and Jews, for us, are still "People of the Book", that's the term that is used. In very liberal interpretations of Islam, the Koran even says Christians and Jews go to Heaven, without changing anything or converting to Islam.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

that doesn't really jive with the historical evidence, considering the gospels were written during the middle of the first century. plus the OG historian Josephus wrote briefly about jesus in his works.

My understanding is that the two historians from whom we get most of our info on Palestine in that period, Philo and Flavius Josephus, don't mention our historic Jesus.Josephus does mention someone who could be John the Baptist. Both these historians, especially Philo mention several people named "Jesus" which seems to be a title, "the Annointed One". They don't describe anyone who would fit the description of the Christian Jesus.

It is known that in early translations both "Jesus" and Barabbas were called "Jesus".

Vaneigam makes a good case that the "gospels" were "made up", that is fabricated from a combination of texts coming out of pre-Christian messianic Essene texts at a much later date than imagined. He also claims that much of "Paul" was largely fabricated by Marcion, who after essentially establishing Christianity was ironically cast out as a heretic. Vaneigam's ideas seem way out but his book is very well documented.

I am very far from being an expert on any of this stuff, I could be full of shite, but I tend to to agree w/Vaneigam that the historic Jesus never existed.

BTW, I do not mean to offend anyone who is a believing Christian.

[ComradeMan]

My understanding is that the two historians from whom we get most of our info on Palestine in that period, Philo and Flavius Josephus, don't mention our historic Jesus.Josephus does mention someone who could be John the Baptist. Both these historians, especially Philo mention several people named "Jesus" which seems to be a title, "the Annointed One". They don't describe anyone who would fit the description of the Christian Jesus.

But what about Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and Suetonius?

I have read doubts and counter-doubts about the Josephus passage but there is no consensus nor do I think the doubt is raised that it is (whoever wrote it) referring to Jesus. In the description of James, the brother of "Jesus who was called Christ" there is little doubt and far more scholarship supports the authenticity of this passage.


It is known that in early translations both "Jesus" and Barabbas were called "Jesus".

Well Jesus is just a hellenised form of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ " Yeshua " or "Yehoshua" and where we get Joshua from. It was not an unknown name by any means in the area at the time. Barabbas would actually have been "Yeshua bar' Abbas" This version, albeit in Greek, I believe is found in Matthew 27:16-17. More curiously the name bar' Abbas would be Aramaic for "son of the father"- this has led some scholars to postulate that the Jewish crowd actually were shouting for "Jesus" to be released, i.e. "bar'Abbas" and that the narrative has been tampered with to make it pro-Roman and anti-Jewish.


Vaneigam makes a good case that the "gospels" were "made up", that is fabricated from a combination of texts coming out of pre-Christian messianic Essene texts at a much later date than imagined. He also claims that much of "Paul" was largely fabricated by Marcion, who after essentially establishing Christianity was ironically cast out as a heretic. Vaneigam's ideas seem way out but his book is very well documented.

Tampered with I can accept and indeed do accept, but fabricated no. The dates are not imagined- they are based on textual scholarship and scientific method.

[chimx]

My understanding is that the two historians from whom we get most of our info on Palestine in that period, Philo and Flavius Josephus, don't mention our historic Jesus.Josephus does mention someone who could be John the Baptist. Both these historians, especially Philo mention several people named "Jesus" which seems to be a title, "the Annointed One". They don't describe anyone who would fit the description of the Christian Jesus.

It is known that in early translations both "Jesus" and Barabbas were called "Jesus".

Vaneigam makes a good case that the "gospels" were "made up", that is fabricated from a combination of texts coming out of pre-Christian messianic Essene texts at a much later date than imagined. He also claims that much of "Paul" was largely fabricated by Marcion, who after essentially establishing Christianity was ironically cast out as a heretic. Vaneigam's ideas seem way out but his book is very well documented.

I am very far from being an expert on any of this stuff, I could be full of shite, but I tend to to agree w/Vaneigam that the historic Jesus never existed.

BTW, I do not mean to offend anyone who is a believing Christian.

Josephus mentions jesus twice in his writing. I'm too lazy to google them right now, but the 1st is just a casual mentioning about some guy named jesus who is brothers with james. the 2nd is more elaborate that talks about christianity. The latter is generally considered by scholars to be a forgery, though it is debated to what extent. I have not heard much controversy regarding the 1st statement though.

Not to mention you have to take into account the gospels themselves. Mark and the Q-Source were written only a couple of decades after when the crucifixion was supposed to of happened, (potentially earlier in the case of the q-source). The idea that a few books/memoirs, as well as a fervent following of people all conspired to make up a person called jesus sounds far-fetched.

This isn't to suggest that I think that the shit in the gospels is real, or the details are at all historically worth wild. Just that given the amount of information we have from that time, odds are that there was some dude called jesus who amassed a following based on his apocalyptic teaching.

edit add: there is not much debate that some pauline epistiles that are in the bible are forgeries. See this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles#Disputed_epistl es) for example. But to say that they were all maricon's forgeries is far fetched IMO. Really only a small minority of scholars give credence to "radical criticism" that rejects all pauline epistles.


BTW, I do not mean to offend anyone who is a believing Christian.

I'm not a christian, offend away.

[eyeheartlenin]

I thought it would be helpful to quote the evidence of Jesus' historicity from the Latin authors already mentioned (I looked at the other posts and did not see the quotations.)

The following is from a document, "How the Jesus Myth was created," at http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=165954&st=45

* * *

(Quoting)

Probably the most famous non-Christian source used as "evidence" for a historic Jesus, is the Roman senator, consul, speaker, and historian Cornelius Tacitus ( 20 - 117 AD). In a passage in his "Annales, book 15, verse 44" from the year 115 AD concerning the Christians, he mentions the name "Christ" as the subject for the Christian's cult and worship:

"Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of... Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious [or wicked] superstition [Christianity] was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital [Rome] itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue."

This is mere hearsay; it's by no means an eyewitness report or useable as evidence of a historical Jesus-figure.

Then we have Tranquillus Gaius Suetonius (69 - 140 AD), a Roman historian and the personal secretary of emperor Hadrian. Suetonius also mentions the name Chrestus as the subject of the Christians worship. "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Claudius) expelled them from Rome".

("Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit".)

This is also mere hearsay, and not any kind of suitable evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus.

So is also the information by Pliny the Younger, Roman governor in Asia Minor around AD 110. In a letter to emperor Trajan, he asks what to do with the Christians who "sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god".

(Quotation ends)

* * *

The one I think is the strongest evidence is from Suetonius. Claudius was the Roman emperor from CE 41 to CE 54. If Suetonius is correct in his report, then Claudius' action is perhaps the earliest reflection, in secular history, of the existence of the Church, I would think. Of course, it does not prove Jesus' historicity, so faith is still required. :)

[Dave B]

It can become embarrassingly tedious coming from a non magical materialist position dealing with this obvious and bigoted bias;



" .........Tacitus used the official sources of the Roman state: the acta senatus (the minutes of the session of the Senate) and the acta diurna populi Romani (a collection of the acts of the government and news of the court and capital). He read collections of emperors' speeches, such as Tiberius and Claudius. Generally, Tacitus was a scrupulous historian who paid careful attention to his historical works. The minor inaccuracies in the Annals may be due to Tacitus dying before finishing (and therefore proofreading) his work. He used a variety of historical and literary sources; he used them freely and he chose from sources of varied opinions............."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus


Tacitus is regarded as a reliable historian and in this particular area of history was contemporaneous with it. As was his hearsay and second hand history of Boadicea


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica


It is a bit like saying E.P. Thompsons ‘The Making of The English Working Class’ was hearsay.


As an aside the oldest surviving copies of Tacitus date from the 11th century and complete gospels, whatever their historical worth, from the 4th.


Of note the earliest criticisms of Christianity did not appear to question the historicity of JC eg Celsum and some of the early Judaic material.

The later preferring to question the virginity of Mary and attributing the birth to a sexual liaison with a Roman soldier, naming him as a matter of fact as an Archer of such and such a legion which was in Palestine at about the right time, I seem to remember.

(I seem to also remember that Origen writing circa 220AD quotes Celsum also referring to this story.)


And also claims that Jesus was a magician was mixed in with it all.

Whilst it isn’t impossible to slander non historical figures (thus I could say that Nazgûl’s or Ringwraiths in Lord of the Rings were Bolsheviks) it would be a bit of an unusual approach, although perhaps more so now than then.


Some of that material dates from around the 2nd and 3rd century but seemed to evolve into more salacious and absurd versions and details later in the middle ages.

It was obviously included in the Film ‘The Life of Brian’.


Engels dates The Revelation of John at between June 67 and January or April 68

Works of Frederick Engels 1894 On the History of Early Christianity



But we have in the New Testament a single book the time of the writing of which can be defined within a few months, which must have been written between June 67 and January or April 68; a book, consequently, which belongs to the very beginning of the Christian era and reflects with the most naive fidelity and in the corresponding idiomatic language the ideas of the beginning of that era. This book, therefore, in my opinion, is a far more important source from which to define what early Christianity really was than all the rest of the New Testament, which, in its present form, is of a far later date. This book is the so-called Revelation of John. And as this, apparently the most obscure book in the whole Bible, is moreover today, thanks to German criticism, the most comprehensible and the clearest, I shall give my readers an account of it.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm


The gospel documents almost certainly derived from first hand or contemporary material as they include a prophecy that JC would return before everyone who was alive then had died.

Almost incredibly that was not taken out.

Traditionally that had been believed to be John.

Something that required a kind of amendment at the end of the gospel of John itself.