Can religion and philosophy exist independently?

[Philawallafox]

BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever.  If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong.  There is no two ways about it.

I didn't say that.

I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.

Phil, there isn't a single historian (you may be hard pressed to find a single DTF user, as well) who will support you on this.  It's an absolute mockery of the field of history to hold this position.

Correct me if i'm wrong but there are 10 copies of the commentary of the Gallic wars. the earliest being written 950 years AFTER Jesus death.

i'm referencing this page: https://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm

could you please reference me your source?

I'd doubt that many existing copies of the commentary are in Greek.  It was written in Latin, and its use as a teaching tool for Latin is well documented. 

As for the oldest existing manuscript, this site https://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4068821 claims two 9th century manuscripts from France, with a total of about 75 existing worldwide.

Sorry, I had auto refresh on and had to keep retyping my replies

I'll also reference John Dickson's book "The Christ Files" www.thechristfiles.com.au alot and more books when I get more time to do research.

Now.

How can you claim to have the original manuscript when that's the oldest manuscript that you have? and theer are only 75 in existance?

There are several papyrus fragments of the gospels dated to within 220 years of Jesus death.
after that there are several more Greek New Testaments 300-400 years after Jesus death, and thousands more after that. Even though this is a few centuries afterwards it's still 500 years before the earliest transcript of Caesars text.

EDIT: revised dates of earliest manuscript fragments.

[rumborak]

Phil, you can't just make up stuff and sell it as fact. There is essentially zero collateral evidence for Jesus. All there really are are the gospels, and even those are second-hand and plagiarized off each other.

rumborak

I'm not just making stuff up and selling it as fact. do you think i'd say anything here if I wasn't able to back myself up?

Seriously. Prove to me that the gospels aren't historical texts and that there isn't zero collateral before you say i'm making stuff up.

First of all, I don't have to prove a negative, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Unless you want to prove in turn to me that there are no yellow sheep. So no, you have to prove that the gospels are historical records.
Second of all, Acts is not collateral. It's written by a guy who himself claims to have written one of the gospels. And Paul never met Jesus anyway, he claims to have known apostles.
Collateral evidence would be any kind of outside record of Jesus. And of that, there is essentially zero. All I have seen so far was outside mention of the followers, and that long after Jesus' death.

Regarding collateral evidence of Caesar, ask Gaul.

rumborak

[Philawallafox]

Phil, you can't just make up stuff and sell it as fact. There is essentially zero collateral evidence for Jesus. All there really are are the gospels, and even those are second-hand and plagiarized off each other.

rumborak

I'm not just making stuff up and selling it as fact. do you think i'd say anything here if I wasn't able to back myself up?

Seriously. Prove to me that the gospels aren't historical texts and that there isn't zero collateral before you say i'm making stuff up.

First of all, I don't have to prove a negative, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Unless you want to prove in turn to me that there are no yellow sheep. So no, you have to prove that the gospels are historical records.
Second of all, Acts is not collateral. It's written by a guy who himself claims to have written one of the gospels. Collateral evidence would be any kind of outside record of Jesus. And of that, there is essentially zero.

Regarding collateral evidence of Caesar, ask Gaul.

rumborak

No one asked for collateral evidence of Caesar's ascension.

Guinea Pig said that Caesar trumped Jesus by having eyewitnesses to his ascension. I replied with Acts 1 where there were about 120 eyewitnesses. On that note I'd like to see Guinea Pig's reference for that and how early after Caesar's ascension it was written and where the earliest manuscript for it is.

Regarding collateral evidence for the Gospel's early existance, Church Father's were referencing a bunch of the NT books as early as 95 AD Clement who was a bishop in rome wrote a letter to corinth in about 95 AD and references the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. This was still the first generation after the Apostles. As little as 25 years after the books were written and as much as 45.

[rumborak]

Nobody questions the historicity of Acts itself, i.e. whatever Paul and the others did as described in Acts. The point is the historicity of Jesus himself. Acts adds nothing to that claim.
All other outside mentions of Jesus are about the followers, and never (I think) preceding 70AD or something around that.

BTW, I'm not saying there wasn't a guy called Jesus. But I think very little of the important claims are true. As I understand it, the nativity is usually considered an invention and no relation of history. To quote (former) Bishop Durham, "there is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance."

Here's my understanding thus far of what Jesus was: A Jewish teacher with very commendable morals, who ended up on the wrong side of the law with the Romans and ended up being killed. The initial followers mostly evaporated after they realized the Kingdom wouldn't come as promised, and then Paul and a few others essentially revamped the theology around it and ran with it, creating current Christianity.

rumborak

[Philawallafox]

Nobody questions the historicity of Acts itself, i.e. whatever Paul and the others did as described in Acts. The point is the historicity of Jesus himself. Acts adds nothing to that claim.
All other outside mentions of Jesus are about the followers, and never (I think) preceding 70AD or something around that.

rumborak

Acts 1 recounts Jesus Ascension...

You know Christianity was regarded as just a sect of Judaism for a while.

Interestingly since you don't doubt the historicity of Acts let me point something out to you. Acts 18:2 refers to Claudius orders all jews to leave rome. This happened in 53 or sometime around there. Claudius did this because riots were being caused at the incitement of someone names 'Chrestus'. Again at this point Christians were regarded as a sect of Judaism by the Romans. Suetonius refers to it as well and i've mentioned this in another thread. Priscilla and Aquila were Christians not Jews and Paul joined them. This goes to show that christians were not regarded as separate to Jews at this point. This point is AD 52 or 53 definitely before 54 and definitely before the 70s

[rumborak]

Well, noone knows whether this actually referred to Jesus. Chrestus apparently was a common name to have in those days.
But, again, my point is that while there probably was a Jewish teacher called Jesus who died at the cross, what the gospels and Paul say is highly doubtful and full of exaggeration and syncretism. So, Jewish teacher who prophesized the imminent kingdom of God, but died of unfortunate circumstances? Yes. Born in crib in Bethlehem and resurrected 3 days after his death? No. Both claims (born in crib and resurrection) are syncretism from what I understand.

rumborak

[Philawallafox]

Well, noone knows whether this actually referred to Jesus. Chrestus apparently was a common name to have in those days.
But, again, my point is that while there probably was a Jewish teacher called Jesus who died at the cross, what the gospels and Paul say is highly doubtful and full of exaggeration and syncretism. So, Jewish teacher who prophesized the imminent kingdom of God, but died of unfortunate circumstances? Yes. Born in crib in Bethlehem and resurrected 3 days after his death? No. Both claims (born in crib and resurrection) are syncretism from what I understand.

rumborak

How are they synchretistic? Can you point to me what claims are exaggerated?

Why would some Jewish teacher have died on the cross? Jews weren't allowed to kill a man and Romans would usually have regarded the situation as a civil matter and not worthy of death.

Nobody questions the historicity of Acts itself, i.e. whatever Paul and the others did as described in Acts. The point is the historicity of Jesus himself. Acts adds nothing to that claim.
All other outside mentions of Jesus are about the followers, and never (I think) preceding 70AD or something around that.

BTW, I'm not saying there wasn't a guy called Jesus. But I think very little of the important claims are true. As I understand it, the nativity is usually considered an invention and no relation of history. To quote (former) Bishop Durham, "there is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance."

Here's my understanding thus far of what Jesus was: A Jewish teacher with very commendable morals, who ended up on the wrong side of the law with the Romans and ended up being killed. The initial followers mostly evaporated after they realized the Kingdom wouldn't come as promised, and then Paul and a few others essentially revamped the theology around it and ran with it, creating current Christianity.

rumborak

Missed this post before.
commendable morals, a greater than average understanding of the Old Testament, the ability to speak Hebrew and  Aramaic and presumably a pretty charismatic teacher. It's disputed whether he was even a magician.

The initial followers didn't evaporate at all. If you believe Acts after Jesus died there were 120. a few weeks later 2000 were added to their number. This number grew throughout Acts as churches were planted (Paul by the way converted about 2 years after christianity's inception. He had been persecuting Christians up to this point. If there were enough followers of Christ 2 years after his death for there to be cause enough to go to OTHER cities to kill them there must've been more) and continued to grow to the point where they were recognised as a separate religion to the Jews and even Persecuted. Nero blamed the fire of Rome on them and let's not forget the Circus. (we're at 60 years post mortem now) Despite this persecution christianity practically exploded in quantity of adherents. to this day roughly 1/3 of the Earth's population call themselves Christian.

[Ħ]

We have four written accounts of his resurrection, plus at least five accounts, maybe six, of a post-resurrection appearance to multitudes of people.  That's pretty impressive for an ancient document.  If Jesus really didn't rise from the dead, we would uncover documents that say, "Look guys, he didn't really rise from the dead.  Quit lying, guys. I was there, and nothing happened like he said it would."  Or you'd see something like "Yeah, I talked to Mary Magdelene, and she says nothing happened, so you guys are all liars."  But there's really nothing like that.

You have detailed written sources.

You have eyewitnesses that attested to what happened and could provide details if asked.

We don't have any proof from Christian prosecutors that say he didn't really rise from the dead.  Do you realize how easy it would have been to defeat the Christian movement?  Just unroll the rock, take the body out, parade it around, and say "You guys fell for his bluff--it's been four days and he's still dead."  Why didn't anything like that happen?  Don't give me that bogus theory that they "stole the body."  Yeah, right.  Don't forget the disciples were unsure of Jesus being the Messiah as well.  I seriously doubt they would put it all on the line for a guy that apparently got pwned on the cross.  Just look at Peter's reaction--he denied any association with the guy, and he was one of the most "faithful" disciples.

That's how the church grew, because there was so many contemporaries that they could talk to to verify the evidence.

[rumborak]

You have to be more realistic, seriously. Again, the resurrection doesn't appear in the oldest manuscripts we have. What could possibly be an explanation for leaving out this cornerstone of Christian faith? "lol, I forgot to copy that part! "?
The only *reasonable* explanation is, it simply wasn't part of the original versions of the gospels, and was added later.
BTW, I can only recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus", which is about textual analysis of the existing manuscripts in the attempt to reconstruct the source versions.

rumborak

[Ħ]

You have to be more realistic, seriously. Again, the resurrection doesn't appear in the oldest manuscripts we have. What could possibly be an explanation for leaving out this cornerstone of Christian faith? "lol, I forgot to copy that part! "?
The only *reasonable* explanation is, it simply wasn't part of the original versions of the gospels, and was added later.
BTW, I can only recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus", which is about textual analysis of the existing manuscripts in the attempt to reconstruct the source versions.

rumborak

lol @ Misquoting Jesus.  I'll get to that bogus book after I finish my paper, probably tomorrow. 

[rumborak]

Excellent. "Bogus book" is always a great start to expanding your knowledge. Save yourself the time and don't pretend to read the book.
Oh well, whoever indoctrinated you did an excellent job at never making you question what you think you know.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Excellent. "Bogus book" is always a great start to expanding your knowledge. Oh well, whoever indoctrinated you did an excellent job at never making you question what you think you know.

rumborak

So you don't continue to flame me as being "indoctrinated" or ignorant, I regarded the book as "true" before I learned about some really basic fallacies the author made.

[rumborak]

Why bother reading it? You know all about it before opening it it seems. Saves a lot of time that way I guess. Makes for better sleeping too, to know you were right all along anyway.

rumborak

[Philawallafox]

Why bother reading it? You know all about it before opening it it seems. Saves a lot of time that way I guess. Makes for better sleeping too, to know you were right all along anyway.

rumborak

This is the second time you've mentioned that "the original manuscripts didn't mention the resurrection"

This is a fallacy. The oldest manuscripts of one of the FOUR Gospel accounts doesn't have a resurrection *appearance* of Jesus, however they still say that Jesus had risen.

The reason for this is that it is the fulfilment of an earlier prophecy that Jesus had made saying that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. That is the intended purpose of the abrupt ending.

The focus of the book is more about the progressive revelation of Jesus as the Son of God which comes to a climax in 15:37-39 where Jesus dies. The temple curtain is torn in half vertically and the centurion confesses "surely this man was the son of God" the scene at the tomb is the subsequent anticlimax. Like the end of PMU

[Ħ]

Why bother reading it? You know all about it before opening it it seems. Saves a lot of time that way I guess. Makes for better sleeping too, to know you were right all along anyway.

rumborak

Read it already. Dismissed some points as superstitious.  Thought it raised some interesting points.  Investigated said points.  Disgarded as an ill-sourced piece of material.

We all have our own biases, but it is important to test what we believe.  Your bias--you clearly believed that the Bible was messed up anyway.  Of course you're going to walk away from a book that teaches what you already believed, unchanged.  I think you ought to test what you believe by picking up some material in support of what you don't believe.  That's what we Christians do all the time.  While we're on the subject of recommending books to one another, The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel is a good starting point, in my opinion.  And he lists follow-up material if you're interested in specifics.  And I may need to double-check, but I think he addresses Misquoting Jesus as well.

[rumborak]

Of course only one gospel is missing it, the one everyone acknowledges as the oldest, Mark. That is the very point here.
Besides, it's not just the ending is missing in those manuscripts, other ones have plain different endings. Meaning, different copyists patched on different endings according to what they thought fit best.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Dude seriously, just live with the fact that what you hold in your hands as the canon was chosen pretty arbitrarily and edited heavily by copyists.

rumborak

[Philawallafox]

Of course only one gospel is missing it, the one everyone acknowledges as the oldest, Mark. That is the very point here.
Besides, it's not just the ending is missing in those manuscripts, other ones have plain different endings. Meaning, different copyists patched on different endings according to what they thought fit best.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Dude seriously, just live with the fact that what you hold in your hands as the canon was chosen pretty arbitrarily and edited heavily by copyists.

rumborak

Yep. And?

If you want an explanation for it: it's likely that some people just thought the original ending was too abrupt so they could have gotten mark to tag something on the end. It doesn't really change anything though. well...not the short ending. The long ending is pretty weird. Sounds like it's referring to Paul though so it could have been written after he reached Rome. I stick to the ending at vs 8 because it's the oldest and most likely to be right.

[rumborak]

Yeah, but by ending it at 8, all you have left of Jesus' resurrection story is the phrase "he was risen". Which to me sounds like a normal phrase indicating that someone went to heaven.
The real "meat" of the resurrection happens in the added sections.

We could do the same game with the nativity story, which is also believed to be tacked on.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Yeah, but by ending it at 8, all you have left of Jesus' resurrection story is the phrase "he was risen". Which to me sounds like a normal phrase indicating that someone went to heaven.
The real "meat" of the resurrection happens in the added sections.

We could do the same game with the nativity story, which is also believed to be tacked on.

rumborak

The phrase "he was risen" can connote both, I agree.  But when looked at in conjunction with the Jesus's multiple prophecies about his bodily resurrection, I am lead me to believe that the Israelites, the original authors, and the copyists all understood "he was risen."  But when the term "risen" is used, as it is today as well as it was back then, I don't think the natural instinct is to infer "heaven."

For example: He has risen...out of the blackness CHAOS.  I don't infer "heaven" at all.   

[Philawallafox]

Yeah, but by ending it at 8, all you have left of Jesus' resurrection story is the phrase "he was risen". Which to me sounds like a normal phrase indicating that someone went to heaven.
The real "meat" of the resurrection happens in the added sections.

We could do the same game with the nativity story, which is also believed to be tacked on.

rumborak

Mk 16:4-7
" 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

 6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

then the women were filled with fear. Not exactly a reaction you have to hearing that someone's soul has risen to heaven..

a/ stone rolled away - wasn't a small stone

b/ unidentified man dressed in white - The women would have known the man if he was one of the people who followed Jesus (not just the 12) yet he knew the name of Peter. the Disciples weren't exactly rockstars at that point yet.

c/ Jesus body gone - He has risen

[eric42434224]

I dont understand how you can conclude some of these things from your bible quotes.
If the stone was initially rolled to cover the tomb, couldnt it just as easily be rolled away by the same number of living humans, and not a zombie jesus?
Also, jesus' body being gone doesnt necessarily mean he has risen from the dead...couldnt it mean it was stolen by the people that rolled away the stone?
Just askin

[Ħ]

I dont understand how you can conclude some of these things from your bible quotes.
If the stone was initially rolled to cover the tomb, couldnt it just as easily be rolled away by the same number of living humans, and not a zombie jesus?
Also, jesus' body being gone doesnt necessarily mean he has risen from the dead...couldnt it mean it was stolen by the people that rolled away the stone?
Just askin

That is a very common objection.  However, when you look at it, that doesn't make sense from two perspectives:

1)  The opponents perspective.  Opponents of Christ's message surely would have been on guard (which they were stated to have been in front of the tomb in at least one of the gospels, if I recall correctly) in order to prevent the type of thing you're describing.  Obviously, it was a pretty big deal--Jesus was an influential guy that gathered a lot of followers in his life.  Something like that attracts the attention of the highest political elite.

2)  The proponent's perspective.  The only real suspects of the grave robbery would be the disciples or some of Christ's other top followers.  However, what motive would they have?  Sure, they would fool a great many people...but at what cost?  If they indeed stole the body, the only ones who would know it would be the disciples.  However, that would mean that they would have understood that Christ wasn't the Messiah after all...so the disciples essentially lived their lives in persecution and fear for something they knew to be untrue.  Sure, there is a shame factor of being wrong...but would an individual (an esteemed Jewish individual at that) trade their entire life for a cause that is ultimately a lie?  I doubt that.  Not only that, but it would have taken a team of individuals and an organized plan to carry out the robbery...something that seems quite unlikely, given the short amount of time between Christ's death and "resurrection."

[GuineaPig]

It doesn't even make sense that Jesus would have been buried.  That's sort of contrary to the whole point of crucifixion.

[Ħ]

It doesn't even make sense that Jesus would have been buried.  That's sort of contrary to the whole point of crucifixion.

You made that up.  While it's certainly debatable if the resurrection was documented in the earliest manuscripts, as rumborak pointed out, this is a laughable point of discussion...included in a significant number of early manuscripts.

[rumborak]

I think it's becoming laughable how you're trying to just shrug away the massive issues the gospels have concerning their historicity. Point is, you *want* Jesus to have been resurrected. Just like the copyists who added the section.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

It doesn't even make sense that Jesus would have been buried.  That's sort of contrary to the whole point of crucifixion.

You made that up.  While it's certainly debatable if the resurrection was documented in the earliest manuscripts, as rumborak pointed out, this is a laughable point of discussion...included in a significant number of early manuscripts.

This isn't laughable.  The whole point of crucifixion from a Roman perspective was that the bodies wouldn't be taken off the cross, but left up as an object lesson.  It was an extreme rarity that any victims would be taken down.  The fact that the Gospels say he was taken down and buried doesn't mean that is what actually happened.

Now I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen the way the Gospels say.  I'm just saying that in the midst of saying how many things in the bible are "historically verifiable," the account of Jesus being taken down from the cross and buried flies in the face of everything we know historically about the Roman pactice of crucifixion.

[rumborak]

BTW, here's a bit of a tangent, but this always struck me as a bizarre:

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

They said nothing to anyone. So, how do we know? I mean, obviously the account wasn't written by one of the women.
It's the same thing with this verse:

1And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
 42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Who heard this, in order to write it down?

rumborak

[Ħ]

BTW, here's a bit of a tangent, but this always struck me as a bizarre:

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

They said nothing to anyone. So, how do we know? I mean, obviously the account wasn't written by one of the women.
It's the same thing with this verse:

1And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
 42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Who heard this, in order to write it down?

rumborak

Well, I'm sure you know, but the answer I'll give to you is that God divinely revealed that information to whoever wrote it.  But I see your point--it indicates that parts of the gospel accounts could simply be a narrative.  What viewpoint you use to approach the issue is going to drastically affect what you decide about it...

[rumborak]

If you want to use that argument, you would have to explain why the different gospels disagree about what actually happens, specifically John vs. the Synoptic gospels. You would think divine "dictation" wouldn't make them write down different things.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

It would've been really useful if God had told them the date of Jesus' birth so we don't have this 10 year discrepancy between Luke and Matthew, too.

[hefdaddy42]

It would've been really useful if God had told them the date of Jesus' birth so we don't have this 10 year discrepancy between Luke and Matthew, too.

That's one of the main reasons that I not only discount the concept of divine inspiration of Scripture, but I also don't give much credence to the birth narratives whatsoever.

And yes, I am a Christian.

[Philawallafox]

BTW, here's a bit of a tangent, but this always struck me as a bizarre:

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

They said nothing to anyone. So, how do we know? I mean, obviously the account wasn't written by one of the women.
It's the same thing with this verse:

1And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
 42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Who heard this, in order to write it down?

rumborak

Presumably they just told someone later...Maybe they told no one on their way to Peter. Peter was teh one who Mark scribed for so it'd make sense if they went to peter and told no one on the way. that's how Mark would know that they told no one.

The romans wouldn't have usually buried someone who was crucified. it only happened because Joseph of Arimathea (who was on the Sanhedrin - the Highest Jewish civil court) Requested it specifically of Pilate that he bury Jesus in his plot.

Mk 15:43-46
43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

While Jesus was praying alone at that time He did come and teach the apostles for 40 days after his resurrection. I reckon I don't think it's hard to believe that one of the apostles asked him what he prayed that night before he died while he was alone.


PS I'm not sure where this 10 year thing comes from. Could you please explain it to me?

[hefdaddy42]

Matthew's account of the nativity includes Jesus and his family living in Egypt until the death of Herod the Great.  We know that this occurred in 4 BC.

Luke's nativity story has Joseph and the pregnant Mary traveling to Bethlehem in response to a census ordered by Augustus, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.  The census (such as it was) administered by Quirinius was around 6 AD.

That's a difference of at least 10 years between the two accounts as far as when Jesus was born.  Again, using historically verifiable data, as you seem want to do.  The two accounts directly contradict each other.  Jesus cannot have been born both before the death of Herod the Great and after the census of Quirinius.

[rumborak]

Which gospel is it again that got geographics wrong, i.e. the author was writing about an area he didn't actually know?

rumborak

[j]

Mark, I think.

-J