Kishkumen wrote:By the standards of my discipline--ancient history--the evidence for Jesus is relatively poor. It comes nowhere close to Cicero or Caesar, and even compares rather poorly with Alexander the Great, a man whose life, as most acknowledge, is thoroughly intermingled with legend.
That's interesting, Reverend. I would like to understand Mortal Man's "on-topic" battle with Hamblin but I don't have anywhere near the background.
Gadianton wrote:That's interesting, Reverend. I would like to understand Mortal Man's "on-topic" battle with Hamblin but I don't have anywhere near the background.
It looks like there is some evidence that the Bethesda pool story was influenced by Asclepius cult. Not an astounding claim really. In fact, it could be that the narrative imitated Asclepian healing stories in some details without there having been a cult on the site at the time. The question is whether the author would have presented Jesus as more effective a healer than Asclepius. I see evidence in John of this kind of narrative competition with the Greco-Roman world. The story of the woman at the well is based on the Hellenistic royal parousia (arrival or advent) narrative. So is the Asclepius thing a stretch? My inclination would be to say no, but I have not examined the scene in close detail.
The latest issue of Histos has an interesting article on Jesus as a healer.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Thanks Kish. Still goes over my head, but I kind of get what you're saying.
...
Who is the Rob Bowman guy? His theory of Jesus denial culminates in this:
To get around the evidence for the Crucifixion, some skeptics have found it easiest and most convenient to argue that Jesus didn't exist at all
LOL! WTF? Skeptics are so painted into a corner over the iron-clad assertions regarding Jesus escaping the tomb that it's better they argue he didn't exist at all.
Gadianton wrote:Who is the Rob Bowman guy? His theory of Jesus denial culminates in this:
To get around the evidence for the Crucifixion, some skeptics have found it easiest and most convenient to argue that Jesus didn't exist at all
LOL! WTF? Skeptics are so painted into a corner over the iron-clad assertions regarding Jesus escaping the tomb that it's better they argue he didn't exist at all.
LOL!!! Well, if some ancient text says that hundreds of people saw him after he was executed, then that must be solid evidence of his resurrection. By the same token, we can reason that Nero kept coming back to life, since he continued to be seen and followed by many people more than three centuries after his assisted suicide.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Someone should ask what the status of the resurrection arguments offered by people like Craig is among historians. Or what the status is of cosmological arguments in physics/philosophy of science offered by Copan. Etc. (Hint: It's kinda like Jesus mythers, only worse.) The thread is evolving into trumpeting those "scholars" which is hilarious giving the opening post.
Of course, asking this probably will get you banned with Hamblin shouting "I drink your milkshake!" but it might be worth it.
EAllusion wrote:Someone should ask what the status of the resurrection arguments offered by people like Craig is among historians. Or what the status is of cosmological arguments in physics/philosophy of science offered by Copan. Etc. (Hint: It's kinda like Jesus mythers, only worse.) The thread is evolving into trumpeting those "scholars" which is hilarious giving the opening post.
Of course, asking this probably will get you banned with Hamblin shouting "I drink your milkshake!" but it might be worth it.
I think the historical evidence weighs in favor of the existence of Jesus and his execution at the hands of the Romans. What one can say beyond that absent faith in the message of the early Christian community I don't know. External testimony of Jesus comes a minimum of four decades after the execution of Jesus. These testimonia may depend on the reports of Christians themselves. Were the commentaries of Pilate preserved? I doubt he wrote much, or that anyone really cared to search them out, since he was a minor imperial official serving in the armpit of the empire. Thus the most likely source was probably the Christian community, and their story was believed because crucifixion was not something to brag about, as every Roman knew.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:One thing is for sure, Ehrman's is quickly becoming the Harold Bloom of New Testament scholarship. I am glad, however, that he will offer a critique of Jesus Mythers. I hope it is a good one.
Hey Kish, would you mind elaborating a bit?
Is Ehrman becoming the Harold Bloom of New Testament scholarship a good or bad thing?
Also, what do you think of Ehrman's books (the ones intended for general consumption)?
Kishkumen wrote:By the standards of my discipline--ancient history--the evidence for Jesus is relatively poor.
No, it is not.
Kishkumen wrote:It comes nowhere close to Cicero or Caesar, and even compares rather poorly with Alexander the Great, a man whose life, as most acknowledge, is thoroughly intermingled with legend.
All of these men were upper class. Cicero held several offices, including consul, and was a senator. Caesar and Alexander the Great lead famous empires. Jesus was at most middle class. He said "My kingdom is not of this world" and Jerusalem was destroyed not once, but twice within 100 years of his crucifixion (and resurrection).
In fine, you are comparing apples and oranges, professor, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you.
EAllusion wrote:Someone should ask what the status of the resurrection arguments offered by people like Craig is among historians. Or what the status is of cosmological arguments in physics/philosophy of science offered by Copan. Etc. (Hint: It's kinda like Jesus mythers, only worse.)