Historical Accuracy of Christ

[InsertCleverUsername]

Sup guys... I'm new to this forum and since I love debating religion, posting here sounds like a good idea.

Below is a list of varying historical documents and associated proofs that are brought up as defenses for the existence of Jesus Christ. Give me your own, whether or not they are opposing. As a former Christian, I'm still interested in material that relates to Christianity.

A good lecture to watch if you have time: David Fitzgerald Skepticon 3 "Examining the Existence of a Historical Jesus" (on youtube)

accounts:
1rst: The Gospel of Thomas is popular source of evidence, even though the date of composition appears to be widely fluctuating (60 AD being the earliest supposed writing date) and the composition itself is written strangely (suggesting parts could have been added). Gospel_of_Thomas#Date_of_composition (on wikipedia)

2nd: The account of historian Tacitus seems like the most reputable one so far. For those not familiar with it, here it is below:


"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired"

It details the persecution of the Christians from what I've understood. It does not however contain anything that proves the existence of Christ. Why is this used as a source by Christians? I suppose this can be declared somewhat valid as it proves there were followers of a man claiming to be the son of God, however, this doesn't entirely hold up as evidence of him really existing. So far this is the best source for detailing followers existing, but it's deemed questionable by me because of Tacitus supposedly referring to Christ as "Chrestos", a title that only Christians used. All official Roman historians would have used the name Yeshua.

3rd: The Talmud, which describes a Yeshu, also referred to as Ha-Notzri, implying he was from Nazareth. Although what makes this invalid for me is that the Yeshu of the Talmud, who was the mentor of Jacob the Min (a heretic), lived a century after the death of the Christ of the Bible. As a source, this is invalid in my opinion.

4th: The Didache (a text describing the beliefs of Early Christians). My comment on this is that it's apparent writing date is 100 AD, later than the death of Christ. This not being a first hand source, I can't say I consider it trustworthy. Has anyone read the Didache in full and can they tell me about it's account of Christ?

5th: Josephus, a Jew, wrote about the death of Christ. But, many Biblical scholars have claimed that his account is not authentic as it does not match his writing style, and it does not match his religious beliefs. Apparently this account was falsified.

6th: Pliny the Younger. His letters show that he participated in trying to eradicate the cult of Christians that disrupted public order. His letters are authentic, but they only show that there were Christians who believed in a Messiah. Still not a valid account of Christ himself.

7th: The Roman Suetonius wrote in depth regarding the mass slaughter of Christians in the Roman empire. Like the rest, his account only proves that Christians were persecuted. It does not prove anything about Christ.

Now prove me wrong or prove me right. I wanna hear some interesting stuff!

[Invader Zim]

None of those are what historians call 'primary sources'; they weren't written by eye witnesses to the events being described.

[progressive_lefty]

But even if Jesus wasn't magical, it doesn't change the fact that Mohammed married a 9 year old. I don't care if the historical account of Jesus is false, or that Jesus was a muslim, the most civilised parts of the Arab world are where Christians or Jews live. That's a fact.

[RedGrunt]

But even if Jesus wasn't magical, it doesn't change the fact that Mohammed married a 9 year old. I don't care if the historical account of Jesus is false, or that Jesus was a muslim, the most civilised parts of the Arab world are where Christians or Jews live. That's a fact.

So Israel's genocide is "civilized" now?(Or Imperialism?) Aren't you a gem.

Stop judging completely ideologically.

[Zostrianos]

Nearly all modern scholars accept the existence of Christ. They do point out that the historical Jesus and that portrayed in the Gospels were very different people (q.v. the Jesus Seminar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar)), but no secular scholar that I know of disputes the existence of Christ, even the most skeptical ones.
The general consensus is that Jesus did exist, but the scribes who wrote down the Gospel accounts modified and embellished them, oftentimes with mythological elements from contemporary cults. According to Stephen Harris' The New Testament: A Student's Introduction (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Students-Introduction/dp/0073386537/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1306380803&sr=8-1), after Jesus' death, those who passed along his story and eventually recorded it, added Pagan elements to their version of Jesus. Harris' book lists several commonalities between Jesus and the Greek God Dionysos which appear to be more than coincidence:

Like Jesus, Dionysus was born of a god (Zeus, the king of the Greek gods)
and a virgin (Semele, the princess of Thebes). Just as the infant Jesus narrowly escaped death at the hands of King Herod, Dionysus narrowly survived Hera’s attempt to murder him as an infant. Both Jesus and Dionysus performed miracles to illustrate their divinity. Both figures endured rejection by friends and family in their hometowns. Both suffered grotesque deaths – Dionysus died at the hands of the Titans, who cut up his body and ate it. And both Jesus and Dionysus ascended into heaven where they joined their Fathers.

As for the Gospels, the most historically reliable is that of Mark, which is the oldest of the Synoptics, while that of John is the least accurate, the most recent, and it is markedly different than the other 3, which points to much of it being apocryphal. The Gospel of Thomas is considered by many scholars to predate the Synoptics, and while it gives no historical info, it is an accurate source of possibly genuine parables and sayings by Jesus.
Now, for people who don't believe Jesus (or a figure based on him) ever existed, this creates a serious dilemma: if Jesus didn't exist, then who exactly founded Christianity, and how exactly did it emerge?

Many people who claim Jesus never existed say that it was Paul who invented Christianity; however, the Christianity set forth in the Pauline letters and that of the Gospels diverge considerably from each other, which effectively rules out a Pauline authorship for the original accounts of Jesus' life and teachings.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A time machine would be quite useful.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Even if Jesus had existed, he would have been a Jewish heretic, not the zombie-capable man-god that most Christians think he is.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The Situationist writer Raoul Vaneigam makes a persuasive case that the historic Jesus never existed but rather emerged as a complex composite of several Jewish rebels and folk heroes which in turn influenced several Messianic currents within the post Diaspora Essene movement.

The two historians from which we rely on for knowledge about that period are Philo and Flavius Josephus. Both wrote very detailed accounts of the religious and political situation of Palestine at that time. Neither mentioned our historic Jesus even once.

There are Josephus texts which do refer to Jesus but the writing style and even the placement of these snippets is odd and they are widely regarded as later Christian forgeries. Philo mentioned (if I remember) eight people named "Jesus" (which seems to have been a title) none of whom seem to correspond to the bible's "Jesus".

Vaneigam traces how the primary texts, including the "Q document" from which the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are believed to have been derived, drew on a complex composite of earlier Essene and pagan writings. He traces how a messianic influenced Essene movement gradually morphed into something very similar to Christianity as late as the Second Century.

I thought V's account, very well researched and documented, was utterly fascinating.A must read for anyone interested in the origins of Christianity, I mentioned this on this forum about a month ago, alas no one seemed to care. Tre tant pis!

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

[Yugo45]

I always thought that he existed, but he was mentally disabled and really thought he could speak with God.

[Nox]

I highly doubt he existed. The only 'evidence' (if you could call it that) of his existence is *cringes* the Bible.

There are a few accounts of famous romans seeing him, but I doubt they saw him in person, they probably just heard stories about him and wanted to make people believe they had seen him.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I always thought that he existed, but he was mentally disabled and really thought he could speak with God.

Of course. Not only did "He" talk with god, but the guy thought that he was part of God.That was standard operating procedure during that period. There were zillions of saviours and miracle workers who talked to God, were from God, were god. Apolonius of Tyana, Simon Magus, etc. The "Jesus" character is the one who crystallized into a mass religion and survived.

[RedAnarchist]

I always thought that he existed, but he was mentally disabled and really thought he could speak with God.

Mentally ill would be a better description than mentally disabled, but you're right. He was probably a schizophrenic of some sort, if he even existed.

[Astarte]

Retarded... Mentally Ill... Schizophrenic... do you comrades really feel this way about theists? We theists could say you are just "Blind" to a higher reality just as easily.

Secondly, why do some refer to resurrected Jesus as a zombie? Anyone who wants to talk of theology, atheist or not should should realize after resurrecting Jesus had what is referred to as a "Body of Light" - you know, like a ghost, but better - not the same as the decaying undead flesh of a zombie.

[Rafiq]

But even if Jesus wasn't magical, it doesn't change the fact that Mohammed married a 9 year old.

And what the fuck does this have to do with the thread?



I don't care if the historical account of Jesus is false, or that Jesus was a muslim, the most civilised parts of the Arab world are where Christians or Jews live. That's a fact.


even though this has absolutely no fucking thing to do with this thread as a whole, you're wrong, you fucking idiot.

I mean this is grade A Idealism. People are more civilized than others because of their ideas, right? What crap.

Look, shit head, I have been to lebanon a lot, and the Christian parts of lebanon are no more "uncivilized" than the rest of the country. The most "civilized" parts of the Arab world are where the wealth is, and even their you can't call it civilized. The arab world has been under the boot of imperialism and colonialism for a long time, civilization is not something you should expect. Also, the Christian and Jewish parts are usually where the poverty is in countries like Saudi Arabia and some parts of Egypt, so again you're wrong.


It has nothing, nothing to do with religion. Religion acts as a reflection of the material conditions society creates. Religion in Saudi Arabia is a lot different from Religion in Tunisia. Religion in Syria is a lot different from religion in Yemen. Etc. etc. etc.

[Zealot]

Yeah you pretty much nailed everything in OP. I don't actually doubt his existence but the evidence seems a bit scant. I also don't think it would be a leap of faith to assert it was just a fictional character, I mean how many here really think Zeus or any of his sons on earth were real people. There were literally tons of "Messiah's" at the time and so if we were to say he was historical then we have to work out which one of these he was.

Here's my little theory that just occurred to me. Mary cheated on her husband and baby Jesus was born, of course a good way to explain this was that she was in fact a virgin and happened to be picked to give birth to God. Baby Jesus grew up believing himself to be god-man and behold, Christianity.


Retarded... Mentally Ill... Schizophrenic... do you comrades really feel this way about theists?

No, they were talking about Jesus. Just like today you have people who are obviously either mentally ill or disingenuous claiming to be Jesus.


We theists could say you are just "Blind" to a higher reality just as easily.

Well that's up for debate.


Secondly, why do some refer to resurrected Jesus as a zombie? Anyone who wants to talk of theology, atheist or not should should realize after resurrecting Jesus had what is referred to as a "Body of Light" - you know, like a ghost, but better - not the same as the decaying undead flesh of a zombie.

Except it wasn't a ghost according to the bible but a physical body, Jesus even had to eat a piece of fish in front of his disciples to prove it. The only way I can think of something comparable would be a zombie. Or maybe he didn't even die as the muslims claim. Or of course none of what the bible says comes even close to what happened, if anything happened at all.

[Astarte]

Yeah you pretty much nailed everything in OP. I don't actually doubt his existence but the evidence seems a bit scant. I also don't think it would be a leap of faith to assert it was just a fictional character, I mean how many here really think Zeus or any of his sons on earth were real people. There were literally tons of "Messiah's" at the time and so if we were to say he was historical then we have to work out which one of these he was.

Here's my little theory that just occurred to me. Mary cheated on her husband and baby Jesus was born, of course a good way to explain this was that she was in fact a virgin and happened to be picked to give birth to God. Baby Jesus grew up believing himself to be god-man and behold, Christianity.



No, they were talking about Jesus. Just like today you have people who are obviously either mentally ill or disingenuous claiming to be Jesus.




Well that's up for debate.



Except it wasn't a ghost according to the bible but a physical body, Jesus even had to eat a piece of fish in front of his disciples to prove it. The only way I can think of something comparable would be a zombie. Or maybe he didn't even die as the muslims claim. Or of course none of what the bible says comes even close to what happened, if anything happened at all.

Well, Jesus post resurrection is described in a few different ways, in Revelation 1:12-1:16 as


12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[a] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

I maintain, that even when Jesus reappeared before his disciples, ie like when he asked Thomas to touch and investigate his wounds, there are no descriptions of a rotting or decaying flesh body - the marks of the wounds were present but the body he had attained was that of unchanging and perfect immortality - many world spiritualities and religions have a principle of ascension - some times the main aspect of ascension is focused on becoming a immortal being - kind of like an angel, or a djinn - basically a spiritual being - hence "the first of many brethren". I just don't see the Jesus/Zombie connection.


Also, see Genesis 19:3, when Lot takes the two angels into his home and FEEDS them - consuming food does not discount ethereal origins.


3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

[chimx]

None of those are what historians call 'primary sources'; they weren't written by eye witnesses to the events being described.

Probably the closest thing you have to a primary source is the gospel of Mark which was supposedly written by a "secretary" to Peter in like 40-60AD (from the top of my head).

But I think that there is enough secondary evidence immediately following that time period to be fairly certain an apocalyptic christ figure existed at that time. The connections between that person's teachings and modern Christianity though would be completely afoul with each other though.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Probably the closest thing you have to a primary source is the gospel of Mark which was supposedly written by a "secretary" to Peter in like 40-60AD (from the top of my head).

But I think that there is enough secondary evidence immediately following that time period to be fairly certain an apocalyptic christ figure existed at that time. The connections between that person's teachings and modern Christianity though would be completely afoul with each other though.

What would this secondary evidence be? It seems that everything we know concerning early Christianity up to the Second Century is very murky.

[chimx]

the bajillions of gospels written during the 1st century and into the 2nd century. Paul's letters (that aren't forgeries). etc.

let me quote a book i read recently by bart ehrman:


by the end of the first century -- thanks to the missionary efforts of the apostles and of converts like Paul -- the religion could be found in the villages, towns, and cities of Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Syria; it had moved north and west into Cilicia and throughout Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and Macedonia and Achaia (modern Greece)_; it had made its way as far as Rome, the capital of the empire, and possibly as far west as Spain. It had also traveled south, possibly to North Africa, and probably to parts of Egypt.

It just strikes me as conspiratorial to think that a bunch of dudes got together in 30AD and devoted to their lives to spreading the word about some fictional dude. You're right in that there is little secondary evidence from non-christians during this time. I suppose it is possible that some peasants living on the Mediterranean decided to one day invent a religion and work like the dickens to spread it all over the world in just 30-50 years (this was pre-internet mind you), but which is more likely: conspiracy religion a la scientology, or some dude named jesus existed and had some missionaries?

But there is a little secondary evidence from pagan sources too, but it is very secondary. Tacitus the Roman historian wrote in 115 about a fire that Nero blamed on the Christians in 64. He explains who these Christians were saying they got their name form some dude named "Christus . . . who was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius" (annals 15.44). You can also read a bit about Jesus in pliny the younger, but that is even later than Tacitus.

[Elysian]

The apostles would go through persecution, torture, stoning and eventually crucifixion in order to spread a myth! Do atheists realize how stupid they sound?

[Zealot]

I maintain, that even when Jesus reappeared before his disciples, ie like when he asked Thomas to touch and investigate his wounds, there are no descriptions of a rotting or decaying flesh body - the marks of the wounds were present but the body he had attained was that of unchanging and perfect immortality - many world spiritualities and religions have a principle of ascension - some times the main aspect of ascension is focused on becoming a immortal being - kind of like an angel, or a djinn - basically a spiritual being - hence "the first of many brethren". I just don't see the Jesus/Zombie connection.

Reading Paul and his description of the differences between a natural and spiritual body shows how he understood the huge gap between the two. Instead what we have in the Bible concerning Jesus is an unimpressive, anthropomorphic description of what is supposedly a spirit. A spirit eating is in itself an oxymoron, the point of raising yourself to the level of a spirit is to be free from the physical world and its limitations.


Also, see Genesis 19:3, when Lot takes the two angels into his home and FEEDS them - consuming food does not discount ethereal origins.

That's actually one of the most amusing stories of the Bible. Again, it's unimpressive and anthropomorphic. It's also quite an embarrassing story in that Lot offers his daughters to be gang-raped and some time later commits incest with them, the children of this sexual encounter end up in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.



It just strikes me as conspiratorial to think that a bunch of dudes got together in 30AD and devoted to their lives to spreading the word about some fictional dude. You're right in that there is little secondary evidence from non-christians during this time. I suppose it is possible that some peasants living on the Mediterranean decided to one day invent a religion and work like the dickens to spread it all over the world in just 30-50 years (this was pre-internet mind you), but which is more likely: conspiracy religion a la scientology, or some dude named jesus existed and had some missionaries?

Well Paul, the most prominent missionary of them all, self-admittedly never met Jesus (except in his visions of course).


The apostles would go through persecution, torture, stoning and eventually crucifixion in order to spread a myth! Do atheists realize how stupid they sound?

As a Christian you would probably think every other religion to be a myth. Do you realize that it isn't only Christians who went through torture, stoning and persecution to spread religious ideas?

[Blake's Baby]

The apostles would go through persecution, torture, stoning and eventually crucifixion in order to spread a myth! Do atheists realize how stupid they sound?

The religious believe in an invisible wizard from a book. Do Christians realise how stupid they sound?

[RedAnarchist]

The apostles would go through persecution, torture, stoning and eventually crucifixion in order to spread a myth! Do atheists realize how stupid they sound?

Is there even any historical evidence that they existed? There's barely any historical evidence that your friend Joshua existed.

[dodger]

The apostles would go through persecution, torture, stoning and eventually crucifixion in order to spread a myth! Do atheists realize how stupid they sound?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFed4m55PrY&feature=fvsr

Yes I suppose I am a silly sausage......not wanting any part of this nonsense. Happily it is a view shared by the majority of Britons........after all...

[hatzel]

Just to zip back to a considerably earlier post...


The Situationist writer Raoul Vaneigam makes a persuasive case that the historic Jesus never existed but rather emerged as a complex composite of several Jewish rebels and folk heroes which in turn influenced several Messianic currents within the post Diaspora Essene movement.

I know I've said this stuff before on the forums, but I guess there's no harm in repeating it! :lol:

The Talmud is full of people called 'Yeshu' (which also happens to be the Hebrew name for Jesus, though there is debate over whether his actual name was Yeshu or Yeshua, i.e. Joshua, the Greek form of which would be Jesus), all coming from different places, living in different centuries, having different parents and lives and all that. United only in their being considered heretics and doing lots of naughty stuff and sorcery etc. Which is where the suggestion that the 'name' Yeshu was an epithet comes from, inasmuch as Yeshu (or YSH''U) happens to be the abbreviation of the Hebrew curse, 'yimach shemo v'zichro' (may his name and memory be obliterated), which is usually written after the names of evil people ("Hitler, YSH''U, did this..."); of course it's not all that far-fetched a suggestion to believe that perhaps the original names would come to be replaced entirely with this curse in the writings, in the same way one might write "he who shall not be named" (even on RevLeft we notice people saying this in reference to banned members, along with "that other forum" and stuff like that).

Thereafter comes the suggestion that perhaps this Jesus character wasn't actually called Yeshu-a, but that this was a name applied by his enemies (perhaps, then, we should not be looking for a 'Jesus' in the contemporary records?). Or, to get to the idea of this amalgamation, that he was a creation of several previous "hes who shall not be named." Though there is also the possibility that there was an individual by the name of Yeshua who later had his name modified in the writings to Yeshu as a form of disrespect, as people today still modify people's names in a derisory manner. There is a history of this in the writings, the most prominent example perhaps being Shimon bar Kochba, routinely referred to as bar Kozeba (= deception).

As an interesting aside is that this story later comes full circle; those various antisemitic texts published through the years attacking the Talmud almost always cite what is written about the several disparate Yeshu-guys, as if these are comments on the supposed Son of Man. Perhaps there is some truth in the suggestion that Jesus was an amalgamation of a number of individuals after all, insofar as these individuals are often engaged with as if they were all Jesus...

[NGNM85]

GIKFC5GGtD8

[Dave B]

I think when investigating beliefs and claims made by the believers etc a good point to start with is the nature of the contemporary refutations of those beliefs.

There earliest detailed attack on Christianity is found in Origen; Where in his ‘Contra Celsum’ he defends christainity from a hostile attack contained in Celsus’ ‘The True Word’; written sometime in the late second century.


Origen reproduces and replies to Celsus' arguments. Since accuracy was essential to his refutation of The True Word most scholars agree that Origen is a reliable source for what Celsus said.


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


Celsus was is clearly very familiar with the basic story eg Jesus being a carpenter and having been crucified along with the details etc.

And basically proceeds along the lines of a ‘theological’ attack on the interpretation of the gospel narrative and the proposed divinity of JC etc without actually disputing the historical existence of the person or even for that matter the general factual accuracy of the narrative.

Although you could argue that he was merely attacking the theory and interpretation of Christian narrative and text as he found it.

But he does dispute some factual points like the claim that JC was born from a Virgin.

Citing a historical claim that JC was the result of a sexual liaison with a named Roman soldier.

It is possible of course that smearing an unhistorical figure might be more effective that merely disputing their existence at all, especially in those days and their attitudes to material facts.

But ironically it is only recently that the historical existence of JC has been disputed.

Early Judaic texts for instance preferred to question his parentage, as with Celsum (and Celsum may have been repeating this material himself) and accusing him of having been a magician etc.

Origen a scholar and intellectual circa 240AD also makes the clear and categorical claim that Josephus, circa 70AD, didn’t believe that JC was the Christ etc.

This is actually used to dispute the authenticity of the contentious and probably forged or tampered with Testimonium Flavianum by Josephus.


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

The question might be; how did Origen know in 240AD that Josephus in 70AD didn’t believe it?

Unless he actually said it and the Christain monks decided tamper with the original text and provided us with Testimonium Flavianum instead.

Perhaps shooting 20th century Christianity in the foot in the process.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Jesus may not have been a zombie exactly, but the undead are a wily lot. Have you forgotten about necromancers? Do you know anything about the mysteries of corpselight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will-o%27-the-wisp)?

I don't think Judaism sanctions that kind (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightIsNotGood) of control over life and death, which is probably why he was considered a heretic.

[progressive_lefty]

So Israel's genocide is "civilized" now?(Or Imperialism?) Aren't you a gem.

Stop judging completely ideologically.

Do you take offence to the fact that some people go to 'Israel occupation' rallies because of the very fact that Israel is a Jewish state in the Middle East - which must not exist because it is an 'insult to Islam'? Isn't that somehow different to the intentions of others to demonstrate against 'Israel's occupation' because it is in breach of human rights and international law? Do you not take issue with that?


And what the [email protected]#$%^&* does this have to do with the thread?

This is a debate about the existence of Jesus.


even though this has absolutely no fucking thing to do with this thread as a whole, you're wrong, you fucking idiot. Amazing choice of words.


Look, [email protected]#$%^&* head, I have been to lebanon a lot, and the Christian parts of lebanon are no more "uncivilized" than the rest of the country. The most "civilized" parts of the Arab world are where the wealth is, and even their you can't call it civilized. The arab world has been under the boot of imperialism and colonialism for a long time, civilization is not something you should expect. Also, the Christian and Jewish parts are usually where the poverty is in countries like Saudi Arabia and some parts of Egypt, so again you're wrong. Are you an Islamist? Is there not a correlation between the fact that Jewish and Christian areas outside of Israel in the Middle East are poor - BECAUSE they are not Muslim? The Christian areas in Lebanon are more civilised because they are rooted in Christian values and a secular state. What happened to Hezbullah? Have they just disappeared out of Lebanon in the last week?


It has nothing, nothing to do with religion. Religion acts as a reflection of the material conditions society creates. Religion in Saudi Arabia is a lot different from Religion in Tunisia. Religion in Syria is a lot different from religion in Yemen. Etc. etc. etc.Are you saying that the shocking cultural practices out of the Middle East are not a reflection of Islam? There's no reason as to why these same practices find themselves in countries like Nigeria, Malaysia and Indonesia? And I do not buy your argument for a second that there is a difference in Islamic societies in the Middle East.

[Zealot]

The Christian areas in Lebanon are more civilised because they are rooted in Christian values and a secular state.

That's some shitty materialism you have there and also completely wrong. Do you realize that Muslims once had a civilization that dwarfed anything the Christians had? And to say "Christian values" is simply not enough, because their values are entirely subjective and not every Christian has the same values. It doesn't mean this or that group is better, it's just simple dialectical materialism.

[Blake's Baby]

Do you take offence to the fact that some people go to 'Israel occupation' rallies because of the very fact that Israel is a Jewish state in the Middle East - which must not exist because it is an 'insult to Islam'? Isn't that somehow different to the intentions of others to demonstrate against 'Israel's occupation' because it is in breach of human rights and international law? Do you not take issue with that?



This is a debate about the existence of Jesus.

Amazing choice of words.

Are you an Islamist? Is there not a correlation between the fact that Jewish and Christian areas outside of Israel in the Middle East are poor - BECAUSE they are not Muslim? The Christian areas in Lebanon are more civilised because they are rooted in Christian values and a secular state. What happened to Hezbullah? Have they just disappeared out of Lebanon in the last week?

Are you saying that the shocking cultural practices out of the Middle East are not a reflection of Islam? There's no reason as to why these same practices find themselves in countries like Nigeria, Malaysia and Indonesia? And I do not buy your argument for a second that there is a difference in Islamic societies in the Middle East.

Are you sure you're a 'progressive leftist'? Over here the views that you espouse are very common among the most reactionary right-wingers including the French government, the English Defence League and Anders Breivik the Norwegian mass-murder.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The apostles would go through persecution, torture, stoning and eventually crucifixion in order to spread a myth! Do atheists realize how stupid they sound?

Not as stupid as the one who doesn't seem to realise that a belief doesn't have to be true in order for people to take it seriously and act on that belief.

[Blake's Baby]

No, but, millions of Russian soldiers died in WWII defending the 'Socialist Fatherland' from the Nazis, so it must have been true that the Soviet Union was the greatest country on Earth. And millions of Germans died in defence of the Nazi state, so that must have been the greatest thing on Earth, and millions of people die every day convinced that there's no better world than the one we have so that must be true as well... anything anyone believes as they die must be true, mustn't it?

[progressive_lefty]

That's some shitty materialism you have there and also completely wrong. Do you realize that Muslims once had a civilization that dwarfed anything the Christians had? And to say "Christian values" is simply not enough, because their values are entirely subjective and not every Christian has the same values. It doesn't mean this or that group is better, it's just simple dialectical materialism.

Pretty simple, where would you choose to live? Would you want to live in the Hezbullah areas or in the Christian areas? Is there any correlation between Lebanon's democracy and it's Christian minority, and the non-democratic Islamic countries across the Middle East?


Are you sure you're a 'progressive leftist'? Over here the views that you espouse are very common among the most reactionary right-wingers including the French government, the English Defence League and Anders Breivik the Norwegian mass-murder.

So if one criticises a religion based on a man that married a 9 year old and that cannot even been drawn with a single pen, they are somehow equivalent to the EDL or old man Breivik? Is it reactionary to fear Sharia, polygamy, Child marriages, honour killings..? What sort of leftist defends a religion or ideology that would never ever allow for any Communist society anywhere on this planet? Do you take pride in seeing Hezbullah flags at Palestinian rallies?

[Zealot]

Pretty simple, where would you choose to live? Would you want to live in the Hezbullah areas or in the Christian areas? Is there any correlation between Lebanon's democracy and it's Christian minority, and the non-democratic Islamic countries across the Middle East?

Again, check your materialism, because quite frankly your surface-based view is shit. I wouldn't be living with fundamentalist Christians OR Muslims.


So if one criticises a religion based on a man that married a 9 year old and that cannot even been drawn with a single pen, they are somehow equivalent to the EDL or old man Breivik? Is it reactionary to fear Sharia, polygamy, Child marriages, honour killings..? What sort of leftist defends a religion or ideology that would never ever allow for any Communist society anywhere on this planet? Do you take pride in seeing Hezbullah flags at Palestinian rallies?

Somehow it went completely past you that most Christians wouldn't allow for a Communist society either. You're still harping on about Muhammad's 9 year old wife and quite obviously haven't found out that the Bible contains a lot worse than that. And to be quite honest, George Bush makes Hezbollah look like a lawn bowling club except Georgy was a fundie Christian.

[Invader Zim]

Probably the closest thing you have to a primary source is the gospel of Mark which was supposedly written by a "secretary" to Peter in like 40-60AD (from the top of my head).

But I think that there is enough secondary evidence immediately following that time period to be fairly certain an apocalyptic christ figure existed at that time. The connections between that person's teachings and modern Christianity though would be completely afoul with each other though.


Actually around 70 A.D. Mark makes reference to the destruction of the temple by the Romans. While that is portrayed as being a prophesy, I'm more willing to go by good old fashioned physics and conclude that the author wrote about the event after it had occured.

[Blake's Baby]

...


So if one criticises a religion based on a man that married a 9 year old and that cannot even been drawn with a single pen, they are somehow equivalent to the EDL or old man Breivik? Is it reactionary to fear Sharia, polygamy, Child marriages, honour killings..? What sort of leftist defends a religion or ideology that would never ever allow for any Communist society anywhere on this planet? Do you take pride in seeing Hezbullah flags at Palestinian rallies?

Well obviously logic isn't your strong point, so I will point out that connecting your views to the right wing, does not necessarily mean that I support Hezbollah. In fact, there is no necessary connection between them at all. 'He who is not with us is against us'. Or, utterly indifferent to the squabbling of the terminally stupid. I really don't care about any of your magic invisible friends, or your paranoia about brown people.

[Elysian]

No, but, millions of Russian soldiers died in WWII defending the 'Socialist Fatherland' from the Nazis, so it must have been true that the Soviet Union was the greatest country on Earth. And millions of Germans died in defence of the Nazi state, so that must have been the greatest thing on Earth, and millions of people die every day convinced that there's no better world than the one we have so that must be true as well... anything anyone believes as they die must be true, mustn't it?

The apostles had the chance to verify the truth (about Jesus' resurrection). That's the difference.

[Blake's Baby]

The apostles had the chance to verify the truth (about Jesus' resurrection). That's the difference.

And the Russian soldiers didn't have the chance to verify the truth about Russia?

[RGacky3]

Actually around 70 A.D. Mark makes reference to the destruction of the temple by the Romans. While that is portrayed as being a prophesy, I'm more willing to go by good old fashioned physics and conclude that the author wrote about the event after it had occured.

Th 70AD dating of Mark is'nt certain, and of that dating is the prophecy. However what is also known is that many christians fled Jerusalem after the first retreat of the Romans to Pella in the Decapolis area east of the Jordan.

You can have non-prophetic explinations for this as well, but its conjecture, you can't know for certain why Christians wen't there.

But as for the historical Jesus, a couple facts are basically uncontroversial by scholars, he existed, was a popular figure, was a religious leader and a jewish reformer and was executed by the Romans for sedition and charged by the sanhedrin of blasphemy, that he was a single person (i.e. not a mix of people,) and that a sect of judaism following his teachings arose RIGHT after his death. Those facts historically are as established as almost any other historical facts from that time period.

There were other messianic figures at that time who history also recognizes as real people with followers, but apparently did'nt really catch on as much.


Is there not a correlation between the fact that Jewish and Christian areas outside of Israel in the Middle East are poor - BECAUSE they are not Muslim?

No .... There is no corrolation, if you know the history and political economcs of the area.


So if one criticises a religion based on a man that married a 9 year old and that cannot even been drawn with a single pen, they are somehow equivalent to the EDL or old man Breivik? Is it reactionary to fear Sharia, polygamy, Child marriages, honour killings..? What sort of leftist defends a religion or ideology that would never ever allow for any Communist society anywhere on this planet? Do you take pride in seeing Hezbullah flags at Palestinian rallies?

I take it your not a Koran Scholar, you making these judgements is as dumb as anti-christians taking singular bibiclan verses and interperating then out of conext and trying to make up theological implications.


Are you saying that the shocking cultural practices out of the Middle East are not a reflection of Islam? There's no reason as to why these same practices find themselves in countries like Nigeria, Malaysia and Indonesia? And I do not buy your argument for a second that there is a difference in Islamic societies in the Middle East.

Do you realize the slippary slope your going down, the same arguments could be said of Judaism, christianity and so on, all throughout history and different geographical areas.

Does anyone even NEED to bring up pre-enlightenment europe vrs muslim lands. Seriously.

[Blake's Baby]

I think you're overestimating the historical evidence, Gacky.

The 'Jesus' of the New Testament is pretty certainly a composite figure, as some of the sayings attributed to him have been found in manuscripts of approximately 200BC, ascribed to the 'teacher of righteousness'. But I think the likely explanation is there was there is a 'majority Jesus' who was the inspiration for the Christian cult (which I think you're right sprang up in the AD30s-40s). But this 'majority Jesus' was added to with other bits of folklore and stories originally involving other teachers. So I'd dispute how 'unitary' he was.

The rest is fairly uncontroversial I'd argue, though I'm not sure when the earliest non-Christian evidence is that he was charged with either blasphemy or sedition. Can't realy think of anything much pre-dating Joesephus to be honest.

[RGacky3]

The 'Jesus' of the New Testament is pretty certainly a composite figure, as some of the sayings attributed to him have been found in manuscripts of approximately 200BC, ascribed to the 'teacher of righteousness'.

Those writings are from the dead sea scrolls, the damascus document where the "teacher of righteousness" is writte in is dated around 100BC, the whole dead sea scrolls were from 150BC to about 70 CE.

Who this guy was not known at all, but the sayings are not the same at all, they are similar sure, and infact some people believe that Jesus was a member of the Jewish sect that this "teacher of righteousness" came from, but the fact that his sayings are similar should'nt be suprising at all, anymore than sayings of Che Guevara being similar to that of Lenin should'nt be suprising.

THey both came from the Jewish tradition, and they both relied on Jewish text for their teachings.

THe fact that Jesus was a singular individual is accepted by the vast majority of historians. BTW, acts of the apostles is generally dated to earlier than the gospels, i.e. soon after 50 CE, taking from actual eye witnesses of Jesus.

I'm not going to argue historically that the miricles happened (miricles were attributed to other historical figres too, like Roman emperors), or that Jesus was divine (which I don't believe, even though I am a Christian). But based on modern scholarship, the facts I listed are Generally accepted.

[Invader Zim]

Th 70AD dating of Mark is'nt certain,

Well, actually it is pretty simple. There are two possibilities. Either Mark wrote the gospel prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, and Jesus broke the laws of physics. Or you can stay within the realm of reality and accept that it could not have been a prediction and that the passage is direct textual evidence that the work was written retrospective of the events described.

It really is that simple. You either accept the highly likely and easily corroborated (by other textual evidence) conclusion that the author of Mark wrote several decades after the alleged events described, in the light of the First Jewish-Roman War, or you accept some moonshine fairy-tale that we know to be physcially impossible but at odds with the rest of the textual evidence - all of which points to the fact that 'Mark' was not only not an eye-witness but had never even been to Palestine.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I'm sorry, but does it matter much whether christ existed or was mythical? If he actually existed, he was some wacky rabbi who thought he was part of god. Doo dah. The movement that he spawned decayed into the excresence that became modern christianity (and Islam, sort of). Surely the last progressive era of Christianity was the Reformation. That brought us protestantism, a suitable religion for the ascendant bourgeoisie.

It's religion, baby. Made up shit to get people to do stuff and to help them feel better about their shitty lives. That being said, your posts about references to Jesus are interesting.

[RGacky3]

Well, actually it is pretty simple. There are two possibilities. Either Mark wrote the gospel prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, and Jesus broke the laws of physics. Or you can stay within the realm of reality and accept that it could not have been a prediction and that the passage is direct textual evidence that the work was written retrospective of the events described.


Exactly, its clear Mark is an extremely early work, but the 70 dating is put in to stay within the realm of naturalism, which is fine.


in the light of the First Jewish-Roman War, or you accept some moonshine fairy-tale that we know to be physcially impossible but at odds with the rest of the textual evidence - all of which points to the fact that 'Mark' was not only not an eye-witness but had never even been to Palestine.

The authorship of Mark is unknown, some historians accept the authorship, some do not, either way it is clear it was based on various sources and was written by someone who spoke both greek and aramaic, many scholors think it was written in syria or palestine.

But the author was clearly a jew, writing for nonjews.

[Invader Zim]

The apostles had the chance to verify the truth (about Jesus' resurrection). That's the difference.


Except, this is just not true. Not one of the gospels is an 'eye witness' account. Both Luke and Matthew were cheap rip-offs of Mark (Matthew at one point doesn't even bother to change the wording), and as I pointed out in my previous post, the author of Mark had never even been to Palestine, let alone been born there and widely and frequently travelled it during Jesus' ministry.

The fact is the author of Mark was hoplessly ignorant of the basic geography of the region he described. For example, the author informs us Jesus chased a demon into some pigs "in the land of Gerasenes" and then drove those pigs down a hill into the Sea of Galilee (Mark 5.1). The fact is Gerasa is a good 30 miles away from the Sea of Galilee. More than a slight error.

But that isn't 'Mark's' only error, if it were we could perhaps give him the benefit of the doubt - but sadly it isn't. Mark also expects us to believe that when travelling from Tyre to the Decapolis (a group of towns south-east of Tyre surrounding the Sea of Galilee) you would travel through Sidon. Sidon is, in fact, in completely the wrong direction (north, along the coast, of Tyre) to get to the Decapolis. (7:31) It is like saying that the route from Birmingham to London takes you via Manchester.

Furthermore, Mark also suggests that when travelling from Jericho to Jerusalem you would pass through Bethpage and then Bethany, in actual fact Bethany is to the East of Bethphage, not the other way round. (Mark 11) It is like saying that when travelling south from New York to Washington D.C. you would pass through Baltimore then Philadephia.

Basically, Mark only had a vague idea about the region gleened from what others had told him. He was not a local man writing about familiar native geography. It would be like me, born and raised and spent all my life in Britain, not knowing the respective locations of London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Palestine2.gif

See this is the problem with you Bible-bashers, you refuse to critically analyse your sacred and allegedly infallable text. The fact is, if you did, you would soon realise just how error-prone and nonsensical it is. Is it a defence mechanism? Are you subconciously aware that your beliefs are actually pretty silly and refuse to critically reflect on them in case you run the danger of shaking them, and with them a large portion of your self-identity and how you view the world?

Don't get me wrong, you can believe whatever bat-shit crazy, self-disproving nonsense you like, if it makes you like yourself more, provides a prop to support and provide purpose to this otherwise meaningless, insect existence of ours - just don't try to pretend that that there is any kind of historical or scientific grounding for your beliefs - because the reality is that science, geography and history far from complimenting your beliefs actually disprove them.... entirely.

[RGacky3]

Mark 11 says Bethany AND bethpag, not through, not and then and s on.

Mark 7:31 does'nt imply a direct trip at all

Mark 5:1 says the "region of Garasenes"

All of these "errors" just come from a missreading of the text. Again, the majority of historians accept the facs I presented.

[Invader Zim]

Exactly, its clear Mark is an extremely early work, but the 70 dating is put in to stay within the realm of naturalism, which is fine.



The authorship of Mark is unknown, some historians accept the authorship, some do not, either way it is clear it was based on various sources and was written by someone who spoke both greek and aramaic, many scholors think it was written in syria or palestine.

But the author was clearly a jew, writing for nonjews.


Sorry, but no serious biblical scholar worth paying any attention to suggests that 'Mark' was in Palestine. The author of Mark knows even less about the region's geography than I do, and I've never even been in the same continent as Palestine.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Of course Jesus existed.

First, all the sources are secondary, but wouldn't it be a little strange for these Christians to gain followers by all making up someone who died a few years before? Anybody with a memory would be able to remember that there was no person named Jesus ... lets remember that at the time of Paul and the early Christian cult, the crucifixion would have been an event that people would have actually physically lived through. It is more reasonable to conclude that there was a figure Jesus who was their prophet which many of them had physically met and remembered, and they later added to the myths around him based on the myths of other contemporary self-proclaimed Messiahs and various Pagan gods. At some later date, after much revision and whatnot, the texts became set in stone as particular gospels.

Second, crucifixion was a horrible way to die and the idea that the messiah would accept such a death was an anathema to Judaism. Since the messiah was a figure meant to liberate the Jews from repression, not get executed by gentile overlords, Jesus would have been a really bad fiction to invent for the sake of converting Jews. And Pagan heroes were themselves powerful beings able to destroy monsters, not all-loving proto-hippies who get executed. They probably crucified him in the hope that such an end would discredit him as a prophet. If early Christians were really going to make up a figure, they would have made a story which would have not so clearly contradicted the fundamental values of the Pagans and Jews alike (who disagreed on little).

A similar thing happened with the life and death of other prophets/religious figures, like the Buddha (whose life wasn't recorded in text until a few centuries after his death). Just because their remembrance went through a period of oral tradition, it doesn't mean they didn't exist.


Well, actually it is pretty simple. There are two possibilities. Either Mark wrote the gospel prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, and Jesus broke the laws of physics. Or you can stay within the realm of reality and accept that it could not have been a prediction and that the passage is direct textual evidence that the work was written retrospective of the events described.

It really is that simple. You either accept the highly likely and easily corroborated (by other textual evidence) conclusion that the author of Mark wrote several decades after the alleged events described, in the light of the First Jewish-Roman War, or you accept some moonshine fairy-tale that we know to be physcially impossible but at odds with the rest of the textual evidence - all of which points to the fact that 'Mark' was not only not an eye-witness but had never even been to Palestine.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Mark, but at least some prophesy is recorded and remembered because people did predict events those events came to pass. It's not physically impossible. (1) You can get dumb luck. Probably a lot of Jewish prophets had dumb luck-the ones who were wrong were ignored, those who were right were remembered. (2) Some "prophesies" are predictions based on what seems quite probable. I doubt it would have been too much of a surprise to some that the Jews rebelled again, and then that the Romans were able to easily defeat them and sack their temple.

[Franz Fanonipants]

socrates is equally historically specious. abandon plato you rank idealist scum.

e: homer too. out w/the iliad.

[Invader Zim]

Mark 11 says Bethany AND bethpag, not through, not and then and s on.

Mark 7:31 does'nt imply a direct trip at all

Mark 5:1 says the "region of Garasenes"

All of these "errors" just come from a missreading of the text. Again, the majority of historians accept the facs I presented.


Mark 11 says Bethany AND bethpag, not through, not and then and s on.

The primacy of text suggests that you would reach one prior to the other.


Mark 7:31 does'nt imply a direct trip at allO RLY? Let us examine the passage, from the Weymouth NT:

"Returning from the neighbourhood of Tyre, He came by way of Sidon to the Lake of Galilee, passing through the district of the Ten Towns."

The J. B. Phillips:

"Once more Jesus left the neighbourhood of Tyre and passed through Sidon towards the Lake of Galilee, and crossed the Ten Towns territory."

The CEB (a very recent translation):

"After leaving the region of Tyre, Jesus went through Sidon toward the Galilee Sea through the region of the Ten Cities."

The KJB:

"And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis."

Or from the ASB:

"And again, having gone forth from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis"

[From Richmond] By way of Las Vegas to New York.

Makes a lot of sense.

And of course you wouldn't go "through" the Ten Town (Decapolis) to get to the Sea of Galilee. The Ten towns are South East of the Sea of Galilee and Jesus approached from the North West.

Let me show you a map:

* I misspelt Dalmanutha- which, we know from Mark 8 is where Jesus was actually heading, prior to travelling north of Galilee to Bethsaida where he healed a blind man, and then headed north again.

** Jesus' route according to Mark is in Red, the route that he would have taken had Mark actually had a clue about the geography of Palestine is in black.

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/5751/palsetine.jpg


Mark 5:1 says the "region of Garasenes"

No, it doesn't, what it says is:

"So they arrived at the opposite shore of the Lake, in the country of the Gerasenes."

Perhaps you are confusing Matthew's version of the story, in which he obviously being aware of Mark's ignorance, re-writes the story as taking place in Gadara - which, incidentally, is still six miles away from the Sea of Galilee.

And of course the region of Gerasenes, a southerly town within the Decapolis, is clearly different from the region of any of the other ten towns, such as, say, Pella to the North West of Gerasenes, or say Hippus (the only town in which the story would actually make any sense). No, Mark picked a region it would take a good seven hours to walk if you wanted to get to the Sea of Galilee.



All of these "errors" just come from a missreading of the text. Again, the majority of historians accept the facs I presented.

You plainly haven't read any serious biblical scholars, because they do not, in fact, for the most part hold that opinion at all. Read, say, Randel Helms or Dennis Nineham, who obliterate your theory.

[Invader Zim]

socrates is equally historically specious. abandon plato you rank idealist scum.




Except, of course, Socrates is mentioned, not only by Plato, but also independently by Xenophon and Aristophanes.

Your post phails.


I'm not saying that this is the case with Mark, but at least some prophesy is recorded and remembered because people did predict events those events came to pass. It's not physically impossible. (1) You can get dumb luck. Probably a lot of Jewish prophets had dumb luck-the ones who were wrong were ignored, those who were right were remembered. (2) Some "prophesies" are predictions based on what seems quite probable. I doubt it would have been too much of a surprise to some that the Jews rebelled again, and then that the Romans were able to easily defeat them and sack their temple.

Except, of course, we aren't talking about the mere prediction that there would be a war between the Jews and the Romans, but that the war would result in the occupaion of Jerusalem by the Romans and the destruction of the Temple. We have gone from relatively loose conjecture with limited potential, to specific and highly unlikely, to highly detailed and as a result next to impossible.

Given that historians in the late 80s didn't forsee the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the USSR right up until it actually happened, you expect us to believe that as early as 50 A.D. people were predicting not only that there would be a war with the Romans in 20 years time, but that the war would result in the occupation of Jerusalem and specifically the destruction of the Temple.

I call bullshit.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i don't know if you guys know it but antiquity and historians of antiquity are crackpots.

[RGacky3]

Makes a lot of sense.


There are many many different explinations for that verse, such as




Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos. [GLA:59-60])

or the fact that it may have been just an itinerary list.

or



"Sidon most certainly does appear to be out of the way if Jesus were going directly back northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee from which he had come. But Mark 7:31 indicates that he looped around and approached the southeast shore of the Sea of Galilee through the region called Decapolis. If you view the Sea of Galilee as a clock, Decapolis (Greek for "ten cities") was a region which bordered the sea from 3:00 to about 6:00.
Orthodox Jews did not normally travel in this area because the region was almost entirely inhabited by Gentiles and Hellenized Jews. Jesus, however, brought his disciples here immediately after their time in the regions of Tyre and Sidon. Now, an important question: What did these two regions have in common?
What they had in common was lots of Gentiles. Since Jesus is reported to have spent most of his ministry in Jewish territory, it is significant that these areas should be linked together. What Matthew and Mark are probably saying is that Jesus took his disciples on one last ministry tour through the Gentile regions. This mission would set a precedent for the disciples’ later concern regarding being His witnesses ‘even to the remotest part of them earth,’ even among the Gentiles. Beginning on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, they would have traveled northwest to Tyre, northeast to Sidon, southeast to the region of Decapolis, and west to the Sea of Galilee. Far from showing ‘a lamentable ignorance’ of the geography of Palestine, the passage helps explain why Jesus did not go directly back to the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, the location identified as his home.



"So they arrived at the opposite shore of the Lake, in the country of the Gerasenes."


Country or region is just a difference of termanology, sure there were perhaps other closer cities. But 30 miles is hardly too far to be in the region


You plainly haven't read any serious biblical scholars, because they do not, in fact, for the most part hold that opinion at all. Read, say, Randel Helms or Dennis Nineham, who obliterate your theory.

Martin Hengel, Gerd and Annette Merz (all serious biblical scholars) believe Mark was the writer, and many others believe it was based on first hand accounts (if not written by someone with first hand accounts),

The fact is most biblical scholars DO believe that the evidence that says Jesus was a singular historical figure that was a Jewish religious leader and reformer and was executed and shortly after a sect was started following him is definately in his favor.

Appealing to historian scholars would put you there.

[Astarte]

Reading Paul and his description of the differences between a natural and spiritual body shows how he understood the huge gap between the two. Instead what we have in the Bible concerning Jesus is an unimpressive, anthropomorphic description of what is supposedly a spirit. A spirit eating is in itself an oxymoron, the point of raising yourself to the level of a spirit is to be free from the physical world and its limitations.


Finally, some actually theology on ascension around here. Awesome, great point you raise. As for the first part of what you say (up until the last sentence), I think it is your unimpressed opinion is all, and it is probably manifest through how the organized religion of Christianity acted in the real world. The point is, just because a spirit anthropomorphizes, or eats does not mean it is confined to the physical world. You raise a great point when you say: A spirit eating is in itself an oxymoron, the point of raising yourself to the level of a spirit is to be free from the physical world and its limitations.
And this is the basic premise of ascension - to be free of the fetters of the physical world. Ascension though actually does not mean that you cannot "come back" into the physical world and manifest at will - if it did mean that it would mean by ascending you were then bound to the ethereal realm instead of the mundane - it would simply be trading the bonds of the physical reality for the bonds of the metaphysical reality. Ascension, as many understand it actually means the COMBINING of the physical and metaphysical worlds - it is mastery of both, thus why it is possible to re-enter the mundane Earthly world post-ascension and take part in events, as Jesus did when he manifested in his "unimpressive anthropomorphic" Body of Light, which at least the disciples could understand, rather than appearing as the ineffable Godhead itself.



As a Christian you would probably think every other religion to be a myth. Do you realize that it isn't only Christians who went through torture, stoning and persecution to spread religious ideas?

I was raised as a Christian, but I do not primarily identify as one - if anything as a Gnostic Christian, actually, because I see the universal Truth in most world religions and spiritual systems, so my "belief" system is more akin to syncretism of Gnosticism/Hermeticism, Abrahamism, Taoism/Buddhism, etc ... I guess the systems that I feel like most closely match what I believe spiritually are either unitarianism universalism or freemasonry.

[Invader Zim]

The large quote you provide actually only posits conjecture, and more over conjecture which isn't supported by what the text actually states. It is an example of the intellectual gymnastics of apologists who, rather than face upto the numerous historical, cultural, legal and geographical errors within Mark - all of which suggest that he was not from the region depicted within his gospel - decide instead to bury their heads in the sand.

The author you quote would have us discount the text which clearly states that Mark believed Sidon to be on the route from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee which he would also have us believe necessitates travelling through the Decapolis and then travel by boat to Dalmanutha.

Even if we were to accept the quote you provided, it still doesn't make a great of sense. Why would Jesus travel round the south-western shore of the the Sea of Galilee, through Dalmanutha, round to the Decapolis only to take a boat straight back to Dalmanutha? Why not travel the far more efficient route round the north eastern shore of the lake, tour the decapolis and the settlements on the southern shore and then travel by boat to Dalmanutha and the settlements in the north west? That route would involve less travelling, while visiting the same cities. But, as noted, this is all conjecture and ignores what the text actually tells us:

"After leaving the region of Tyre, Jesus went through Sidon toward the Galilee Sea through the region of the Ten Cities."

Which makes it pretty clear that Mark had only a general idea of the regions geography. This is confirmed by all of his other errors. So Christian apologists, like the one you have quoted, would have us ignore Occam's Razor, which dictates that the hypothesis with the fewest new assumptions (and in this case is actually fits the evidence, unlike the apologists hypothesis) is the most likely.

[RGacky3]

would have us ignore Occam's Razor, which dictates that the hypothesis with the fewest new assumptions (and in this case is actually fits the evidence, unlike the apologists hypothesis) is the most likely.

Except these are not NEW assumptions you can't apply occam's razor arbitrarily, these are factors that need to be taken into account and need to be taken account in context. Either way, some alleged geographical mistakes would hardly prove that the majority of biblical scholars are wrong, i.e. that Jesus was a historical figure, and that the writer of Mark was writing either from eyewitness accounts or as an eye witness.

BTW, this is'nt apologism, I'm not arguing the divinity of christ, or the divine inspiration of the scriptures.

[chimx]

@invader zim: you should also consider the possibility of biblical forgeries. the NT is rampant with forged books, such as many of writings by Paul. It is generally accepted by theologians that the last bit of the gospel of Mark is a forgery for example.

edit: 70 does sound better, and after looking it up on wikipedia, its dated for 60-70.

edit 2: also, reading Mark 13 again, it isn't necessarily prophetic:


1And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

4Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

[Dave B]

The authorship of Mark is ‘traditionally’, for what it matters, attributed Peter’s son, possibly adopted, and was supposed to have been written in Rome circa 70AD.

Apparently others have concluded from the text that apart from his doubtful understanding of geography he also had an imperfect understanding of Jewish religion and customs.

Also so i have read there was a peculiar literary tradition of the time were it was considered bad form for the author to intrude themselves into the text.

Mark is basically the shortest of the three synoptic gospels, the others being Luke and Matthew, and there is virtually nothing in Mark that isn’t in the other two.

Apart from one passage in particular;

Mark 14;51


A certain young man, who was wearing nothing but a linen sheet, was following Jesus. When the men grabbed him
International Standard Version (©2008)


There is a tempting argument that this ‘certain young man’ was at least a modest allusion to the author.

It sort of obviously stands out from context, I independently noticed it myself when I first read it. Others have obviously diiscussed it.


It is quite possible I suppose if you want to push it that he wasn’t Jewish and had forgotten much of the geography after 30 years or whatever.

All gospel documents seemed to have been extant and circulating by 150AD as Justin Martyr, an ex pagan, refers to them and is clearly familiar with the contents etc.

That would be remarkable really given the slow and expensive pace of circulating literature.

Justin Martyr also adds some details that aren't in the gospels like JC made yokes and ploughs and that he was born in a cave. Although caves were often used as stables etc.

The earliest datable ‘christian’ text is the revelation of John, thus from Engels;



….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….

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm


There is no evidence in the writing of Saint Paul AD 5 – c. AD 67 that he had read or was aware of the contents of the gospel narrative.

[RGacky3]

@invader zim: you should also consider the possibility of biblical forgeries. the NT is rampant with forged books, such as many of writings by Paul. It is generally accepted by theologians that the last bit of the gospel of Mark is a forgery for example.


The writings by paul are not forged ... they are writings written by paul, they are not presented as anything else. As for the end of Mark most bibles (mine at least) include the last part seperately saying that it is'nt clear if it was in the origional and is not in all the manuscripts.

[chimx]

You should read more about Paul. Many christian theologians have long since accepted that a lot of the epistles by paul are actually forgeries in his name. see this wiki article to get you started:

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

[Zealot]

I was raised as a Christian, but I do not primarily identify as one - if anything as a Gnostic Christian, actually, because I see the universal Truth in most world religions and spiritual systems, so my "belief" system is more akin to syncretism of Gnosticism/Hermeticism, Abrahamism, Taoism/Buddhism, etc ... I guess the systems that I feel like most closely match what I believe spiritually are either unitarianism universalism or freemasonry.

I only just realized you were a Gnostic so my apologies but I am trying to zone in on specifically Christian Theology as understood by most mainstream churches. And this has been a sticking point for some I've spoken to, even priests. A lot of Christians (and even moreso ancient Gnostics) have a hatred of the physical world as a "fallen world" and so even if this dilemma doesn't apply to you, it does to a lot of others.

[Tovarisch]

Jesus was born in Nazareth, which is in Israel, which is part of the Middle East. So, I highly doubt that Jesus was white with flowing brown hair. In reality, his skin was probably either olive or light brown colored, and he likely had short black hair and dark eyes

[Blake's Baby]

I really don't think they meant 'historical accuracy of a blond guy playing Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar'.

[Astarte]

I only just realized you were a Gnostic so my apologies but I am trying to zone in on specifically Christian Theology as understood by most mainstream churches. And this has been a sticking point for some I've spoken to, even priests. A lot of Christians (and even moreso ancient Gnostics) have a hatred of the physical world as a "fallen world" and so even if this dilemma doesn't apply to you, it does to a lot of others.

You're right, most Gnostic texts are filled with a kind of malice for the physical world. This was pretty much the argument of gnosticism I considered to be the most "backwards" from a theological point of view; its a very dark outlook to consider the world to be enslaved by an evil archon with the only way of victory against the evil spiritual forces being complete escape from the physical world, even if with mechanisms like alienation, class divisions and the state, it seems like it might as well be run by an "archon" in the gnostic sense.

That is why I like Hermeticism, and even Buddhism and Taoism a little better than gnosticism - it seems to be a little deeper thinking about the nature of reality, rather than coming to the conclusion that the material world is pure evil. Hermes basically says what is "good" is what is "true" and what is "true" or "real" are both "Mind the Maker" (God) and those things made in the physical world which are the most unchanging and longest lasting; from a human perspective - the Sun, and celestial bodies, primarily.

This was a slippery slope for Hermeticism though, as acolytes could get caught up in exoteric paganism's real Achilles Heel; superficial idol worship. Rather than learning to "read the language of the gods in nature" exoteric idol worship means treating the text of god (the material world) as god itself, ie worshipping a wooden or stone image, rather than the deity itself while the true meanings of the deity is forgotten. With the true esoteric meanings of the deities forgotten, metaphors, parables and wisdom are lost and thus also transcendental knowledge pertaining to the nature of reality, and how to master it - the Egyptian Pharaohs set this kind of order up on purposes in Egypt with only the Pharaoh (later other royality/nobility, too) being "able" to ascend since they were privy to the magic hieroglyphic formula and tomb apparatus essential to the ancient Egyptians' collective unconsciousness in regards to ascension.

Jesus, essentially, tried to democratize the ascension formula with the New Testament, but still due to the workings of bureaucracy and the state in spirituality it became an organized religion which also purposely obscured key components.