The historical Jesus

[Lithzenze]

Because we have some knowledge of how ancient peoples kept track of years?

Also, your proposal was that Abraham lived to be very old. If they kept track of years differently, then maybe he wasn't very old afterall? You can't have both.

He would of been old to us, but not nessecerily old then. people in the Bible lived longer that Abraham i belive. So perhaps he was of avarige age for Bible times.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because we have some knowledge of how ancient peoples kept track of years?

Also, your proposal was that Abraham lived to be very old. If they kept track of years differently, then maybe he wasn't very old afterall? You can't have both.

He would of been old to us, but not nessecerily old then. people in the Bible lived longer that Abraham i belive. So perhaps he was of avarige age for Bible times.

That's not the point - you're arguing that the year length could be different - you're also arguing that Abraham was really old. If the length of a year is not the same then, as now, then any age you cite is nonsense.

[Lithzenze]

Two problems with that:

One: You don't HAVE to know. Every year, there are two points at which the length of the day and the length of the night are equal. There is also one single point at which the day stops getting longer and starts getting shorter... and one where the reverse occurs. Any of those data points allows you to work out the length of a year (or a half-year, and then double it).

Two: You don't believe 'god' knows how long a year is

1 year to God could be 1000 years to us. Plus im sure he did, doesnt mean that he told it to abraham.

[Grave_n_idle]

Two problems with that:

One: You don't HAVE to know. Every year, there are two points at which the length of the day and the length of the night are equal. There is also one single point at which the day stops getting longer and starts getting shorter... and one where the reverse occurs. Any of those data points allows you to work out the length of a year (or a half-year, and then double it).

Two: You don't believe 'god' knows how long a year is

1 year to God could be 1000 years to us.

And?

Those thousand years would still be a thousand years - and god (one assumes) is capable of that kind of math.

[Dakini]

And yet it's infinitely more reliable than the site which was provided earlier which was a random personal website maintained by some random guy who intersperses personal feelings and beliefs with what he claims are factual statements.

proof of your claim? i want proof its a guy for one thing, and proof that he puts his own personal belifes into factual statements.

Well, linking to the site once again: http://www.scarfire.com/cjournal/journa ... idence.htm

I can't prove that he's a guy, but if you look at the bottom of the page:

Last updated May 5, 2008

Todd L. Stevens © 2008
All rights reserved. Not authorized for redistribution.

I can't even prove that he actually copyrighted this information. However, why would someone claim to be Todd L Stevens if they are not Todd L Stevens?

Proof of personal beliefs on the website interspersed with "factual" statements:

Important: No one will defend a hoax to their death.

This is not a fact. This is his belief.

Wouldn't Luke have pointed out that the destruction of the Temple had actually happened and that the prophecy of Jesus had been fulfilled if it occurred before he wrote his gospel?

This is his guess.

Not enough time had passed for legend to take effect. Legends tend to start with facts, but over many generations include more fiction. However; it takes much longer than 30 years to develop a legend.

This is very much false. Urban legends arise in much less than 30 years (some develop almost overnight) and tend to be very persistent, even when shown to be false and this is in the days of the internet when anyone can go look it up if they hear something that's questionable, 2000 years ago they couldn't do this. Todd L. Stevens makes this statement with no basis in fact, just stating something he believes to be true.

You'll also notice that he doesn't cite a single source other than the Bible despite the fact that numerous Biblical historians have examined the Bible, translations of it etc and actually analyzed it in an attempt to figure out when the gospels first appeared. Instead of citing people who analyze the Bible in a historical sort of way for a living, he cites his own personal ideas about why it has to have all been written in such and such a time frame.

note: I haven't gone through point by point to discuss how this site is not good, but it's much more than your refutation of wikipedia which consisted of a smiley.

[Dakini]

Because we have some knowledge of how ancient peoples kept track of years?

Also, your proposal was that Abraham lived to be very old. If they kept track of years differently, then maybe he wasn't very old afterall? You can't have both.

He would of been old to us, but not nessecerily old then. people in the Bible lived longer that Abraham i belive. So perhaps he was of avarige age for Bible times.

It is very unlikely that people in the Bible actually lived longer than people now. It is much more likely that they lived much shorter lives due to the absence of good medical care. Abraham probably wouldn't have been old to us, unless we were teenagers who defined "old" to be anyone over 30.

Once again, what was it: Does the Bible keep track of years differently or were Abraham and the others unreasonably and implausibly old?

[Tmutarakhan]

The whole contested passage - is what I'm talking about. The one you keep saying 'well, these three bits are added later'... yes, I agree - they are 'added later' to a whole passage that was added later.

Added later by whom? Why? I've asked you this before, but you don't give any alternative theory. The theory that Agapius is reading from a clean copy of Josephus is a straightforward explanation, and you can't beat something with nothing.

You've said 'it fits' - for almost the exact same reasons I've said it doesn't.

He tells a story about official misconduct. Then he tells a story about a messianic claimant whom he doesn't believe in but does respect, who was put to death by the officials. Then he tells a story about a messianic claimant he doesn't believe in at all.
Juxtaposing stories with loose thematic connections is what he does all throughout the book. There is nothing even slightly atypical about this sequence.

you have not pointed to anything that fails to match.

You already responded to at least two of them, so that's just siomply not true.

What's your point? These are phrases which, as you acknowledge, Josephus uses, here used quite appropriately.

No, used quite inappropriately - that's the whole point.

They DO fit his usages, as you acknowledge. It is only "inappropriate" for him to use these phrases for Jesus if you think that, just because YOU don't think Jesus was "wise" or "wonderful", that NOBODY could think so.
Josephus excludes the book of Daniel from his canon of "scripture"; but he still calls Daniel "wise", same as he calls Solomon. Was that "inappropriate"? The words of Jesus showed more wisdom than anything we find in Daniel, in the opinion of a lot of people, why not his? Josephus only mentions two reputed faith-healers, Elisha and Jesus, and he uses the same terms for them: why wouldn't he?

Eusebius quotes a lot of sources, some good, some bad; the version of Josephus he quotes is certainly bad, but I don't see Eusebius as being the one who made it up.

Given his tendency to make up sources if they didn't exist

You have no reason to assert that he ever made up any sources. Frequently he cites sources that don't say what he would like them to say (his citation of Papias, who indicates that "the gospel of Matthew" in his day didn't look at all like the canonical book, is a famous case); he would invent something else, if that was his habit.

But, there is no way that quoting the Josephus passage would have "made Celsus look like a dick".

On the contrary - go back and actually read what I wrote.

What you wrote does not support the conclusion you want. So, Celsus said that people who call Jesus "wonderful" were wrong: and Origen is supposed to come back with, "some people call Jesus wonderful"? That wouldn't be much of a retort. There simply wasn't any argument about whether there was a Jesus, or whether he had a high repute with a lot of people.

[Dyakovo]

Umm well what are the Gospels then? You know, Mark, Mathew, Luke, John?

Books.

So is Harry Potter.


Doesn't mean Harry really exists. Doesn't mean he's actually a wizard.

No matter what Hagrid said.

books written by people who claim they were with Jesus. I have no more evidence to say that your human apart from your posts on NS. Yet noone has desputed the fact that there is someone human typing your messeges.

fixed fo0r accuracy

[Tmutarakhan]

Number of copies sold =/= reliable.

Length of time over which it has been available =/= reliable.


Corroboration is far more important than number of units shifted or shelf-life.

Here we do agree. The huge number of copies of "Sayings of Chairman Mao" indicates (as with the number of copies of the New Testament) that there was a powerful organization interested in propagating the book; but does not even prove that the words in the book were actually spoken by Mao (I have heard that some rare surviving copies from early printings, afterwards recalled, indicate that some of the "Sayings" had to be rewritten with changing times).

[Dyakovo]

well Abraham lived to a ripe old age.

Yeah. I totally believe that he lived to be 175 because it's just so plausible.

i detect sarcasm. I belive that he did live to be of a very old age.

Based on what?

[Dyakovo]

In May 2005, an anonymous user created a five-sentence Wikipedia article about Seigenthaler which contained false and defamatory content.[25] Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia in September, and the content was deleted. He later wrote an op-ed on the experience for USA Today, in which he wrote "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."[26] A reference to the protection from liability that Internet Service Providers are given under Federal law versus editorially controlled media like newspapers and television.

After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.

oh so now i can go register on Wiki and then write an article on how a monster took over new york and pooped on empire state building?

Yes, however without references/citations it won't be considered even remotely reliable.

[Dyakovo]

I believe that much of what is written in the Bible is either made up entirely or greatly exaggerated.

you realise that "years" may have been different back then. (different length)

No, they weren't.

[Farnhamia]

Because we have some knowledge of how ancient peoples kept track of years?

Also, your proposal was that Abraham lived to be very old. If they kept track of years differently, then maybe he wasn't very old afterall? You can't have both.

He would of been old to us, but not nessecerily old then. people in the Bible lived longer that Abraham i belive. So perhaps he was of avarige age for Bible times.

One is reminded of the prescient lyrics from "Porgy and Bess":

Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls dat livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's nine hundred years ?

And the name of the song? "It Ain't Necesarily So."

[Hawkryl]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

Not even remotely true. A lot of legends are amalgamations of other stories mixed together. The story of Noah's Ark was possibly started by a Macedonian king who got himself and his cargo caught in a flash flood that carried him out to sea, and built with the telling. Add in a few myths from some other places, and bingo.

It's far more likely there was no single man named Jesus about whom the Gospels were written, but a combination of men claiming to be the Christ.

Isn't some form of a global/near global flood present in almost all ancient religions?

[Farnhamia]

When will you understand that I'm not reffering to Christianism being more true than other religions? What I'm saying is plain and simple: One religion won't last that long without someone real supporting it. Egyptians had the pharaohs, real. Muslims - Mohammed, real. Buddhists - Buddha. Simple.

Not even remotely true. A lot of legends are amalgamations of other stories mixed together. The story of Noah's Ark was possibly started by a Macedonian king who got himself and his cargo caught in a flash flood that carried him out to sea, and built with the telling. Add in a few myths from some other places, and bingo.

It's far more likely there was no single man named Jesus about whom the Gospels were written, but a combination of men claiming to be the Christ.

Isn't some form of a global/near global flood present in almost all ancient religions?

Yes, quite a few have them. I personally think these are remembrances of the rise in sea level after the melting of the ice, not an actual divinely-caused flood that sank the whole world under water.

[Hawkryl]

I believe that much of what is written in the Bible is either made up entirely or greatly exaggerated.

you realise that "years" may have been different back then. (different length)

No, they weren't.

Yes they were, the jewish calender, roman calender, mayan calender are all different then the one we use now.

While an actual earth year was still the same length of time, people back then didn't exactly know all that much about astronomy.

[Hawkryl]

Not even remotely true. A lot of legends are amalgamations of other stories mixed together. The story of Noah's Ark was possibly started by a Macedonian king who got himself and his cargo caught in a flash flood that carried him out to sea, and built with the telling. Add in a few myths from some other places, and bingo.

It's far more likely there was no single man named Jesus about whom the Gospels were written, but a combination of men claiming to be the Christ.

Isn't some form of a global/near global flood present in almost all ancient religions?

Yes, quite a few have them. I personally think these are remembrances of the rise in sea level after the melting of the ice, not an actual divinely-caused flood that sank the whole world under water.

Are you referring to the end of the ice age?

[Dakini]

you realise that "years" may have been different back then. (different length)

No, they weren't.

Yes they were, the jewish calender, roman calender, mayan calender are all different then the one we use now.

While an actual earth year was still the same length of time, people back then didn't exactly know all that much about astronomy.

The argument was about the length of a year.

[Farnhamia]

Isn't some form of a global/near global flood present in almost all ancient religions?

Yes, quite a few have them. I personally think these are remembrances of the rise in sea level after the melting of the ice, not an actual divinely-caused flood that sank the whole world under water.

Are you referring to the end of the ice age?

Yep. It was pretty dang universal.

[Hawkryl]

Yes, quite a few have them. I personally think these are remembrances of the rise in sea level after the melting of the ice, not an actual divinely-caused flood that sank the whole world under water.

Are you referring to the end of the ice age?

Yep. It was pretty dang universal.

If i am correct, most Evolution theories have it at that time the HOMO genie still wasn't evolved to much past apes.

[Hawkryl]

No, they weren't.

Yes they were, the jewish calender, roman calender, mayan calender are all different then the one we use now.

While an actual earth year was still the same length of time, people back then didn't exactly know all that much about astronomy.

The argument was about the length of a year.

yeah, and the way people judged a year was different back then.

[Dyakovo]

you realise that "years" may have been different back then. (different length)

No, they weren't.

Yes they were, the jewish calender, roman calender, mayan calender are all different then the one we use now.

While an actual earth year was still the same length of time, people back then didn't exactly know all that much about astronomy.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Dakini]

Yes they were, the jewish calender, roman calender, mayan calender are all different then the one we use now.

While an actual earth year was still the same length of time, people back then didn't exactly know all that much about astronomy.

The argument was about the length of a year.

yeah, and the way people judged a year was different back then.

Not really... the calendars were different, but the length of time was about the same.

Also, claiming that the ancients didn't know much about astronomy is kinda silly (especially when you include the Mayans in this). They didn't know about a lot of the things we know about, but they had motion of the Sun down pat.

[Hawkryl]

yeah, and the way people judged a year was different back then.

Not really... the calendars were different, but the length of time was about the same.

Also, claiming that the ancients didn't know much about astronomy is kinda silly (especially when you include the Mayans in this). They didn't know about a lot of the things we know about, but they had motion of the Sun down pat.

Yes, the mayans were really advanced for their time, but what they knew compared to what we know now is diddly squat.

[Dakini]

Are you referring to the end of the ice age?

Yep. It was pretty dang universal.

If i am correct, most Evolution theories have it at that time the HOMO genie still wasn't evolved to much past apes.

Umm... no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocen ... leistocene