Historical and Religious Views of the Roots of Christianity

[Vraith]

now I'm gonna have to go look.

[rusmeister]

IIRC, the "biblical" portion of the scrolls is purely of the old testament, and that it is generally accepted (with the obligatory voice or two of dissent ) that they have no real connection with Christianity or the early Christians, and are a Judaic collection. So I certainly wouldn't call them a non-biblical corroboration of the existence, let alone divinity, of Jesus.

And yes, I ignore (or at least for these purposes discount) the claims you mention, not least because I am not sure he made those claims...only that the gospels say he made them, between 30 and 70 years later.

--A

I concede that the DSS is OT confirmation - I was thinking of confirmation of Biblical text in general.
FTR, some 'apocryphal' texts are canonical within the Catholic and Orthodox Traditions, and thus, are Biblical. It is the Protestant Bibles that are based on the Masoretic text.

However, the evidence for the authenticity of Biblical text, including the Gospels and epistles of the NT, is at least as authoritative as anything else that you accept as valid accounts of ancient history, much is which is recorded after significant intervals - even multiple lifetimes. The question arises as to why you would specifically be skeptical of these particular texts. It really looks like the basis for rejecting them while accepting other historical accounts is a rejection of the religion surrounding the texts.

As far as that goes, I cannot be 100% sure of any claims in any historical text. Pliny the Younger might have just wanted to cash in on the destruction of Pompeii - why should I believe his account? I mean, he probably wasn't there at all, and even if he was, he could well have made some of it up.

It is one thing to doubt the veracity of text content. It is another thing to doubt the very historicity of the texts. As to the former, there is plenty of scholastic evidence that the content is not mere fiction or fabrication.
As to the latter, if you doubt these particular texts, I can cast doubt on any number of texts that support history you accept as true. You would have to be content to know nothing.

(RE:divinely inspired: that's something that obviously cannot be proven and would have to be accepted on the basis of authority.)

Also, all the other points of my previous post stand.

[Kinslaughterer]

Against all better judgement...I quickly looked through the last few pages of the thread here.

In 1st century Judea, the Jews were a factious kin-based (closely tied to their protohistorical tribes) agro-pastoralists. They couldn't agree on virtually any subject (an incredibly common occurence) except on most of their defining religious aspects. The Roman conquest of the Near East, however, helped to unify the factions rather well. The Hasmonean Kings replaced by the Herods after the conflict between Julius Caeser and Pompey created a sort of proxy war that installed Herod the Great as the de facto leader of the region.

However much of the Hasmonean power remained in Northern Israel. Jesus spent a great deal of time in and around the Sea of Galilee which was the center of their military power. The majority of Jews would fight the Romans tooth and nail in a serious of minor and major revolts for the next 150 years or so.

Now taking the Bible into a temporal and cultural context would change the appearance of things significantly. Many problems arise because of the relative lateness and inaccuracy of the New Testament Gospels. They go into great detail in describing Jesus as the human heir of King David. This is important for the Jews to restablish a royal figurehead to unify the factions I mentioned earlier. The Sadducees were particularly opposed to Jesus as king because they were the ruling party closely allied with Roman rule (not the Pharisees who would be the ruling party some 100 years later showing the likely time period from which the Gospels were originally written).

Jesus was not from Nazareth but possibly a Nazarene as Nazareth didn't exist a village/town until about 300 years later according to archaeological evidence. Now Jesus was/ascribed to be an heir of David and would go through the Jewish marriage customs with a Hasmonean relative from the tribe of Benjamin, now known as Mary Magdalane. No Jewish leader worth following would go unmarried nor practice all the marriage rituals without being married. Before anyone cites the "DaVinci Code" you should know this was noted and documented centuries ago and the Jews have known it even longer but no one ever seems to ask the Jews about one of their own, curiously. Of course this fits rather logically with the so called "lost years" as he would be raising men, gathering weapons and information and having a family assuming he adhered to any aspect of Jewish culture.

It was vital for Jesus to receive the approval of John the Baptist and marry a relative of the Hasmoneans. Now he would have the support of all but the Herods(who technically ruled alongside the Roman governor) and the Sadducees. His leadership was formed of Zealots including Simon and Judas the Dagger both Northerners and guerilla fighters. Jesus would drive out the demon "legion" possibly symbolizing the conflict. In the plain text Jesus also despised Gentiles as did many Jews who viewed them much like the Romans as carpet-baggers and often in Roman employ. He mentions that they are unworthy of even table scraps and so forth.

Being well aware of Old Testament scripture, Jesus and his followers went to great lengths to propagate the prophecies of a messiah (the Jews have had dozens of messiahs and have used most of the same set of prophecies to predict their arrival and coincedentially they pop up during great cultural upheaval like the Babylonian Exile, Roman rule, bondage in Egypt and so on.) Jesus entered Jerusalem during Passover when more than a million Jews would be in the ancient city. So many in fact that Pilate called for extra military units, somewhere around 3 legions, be sent to the city in case of trouble.

Having caused trouble in the countryside, the Romans were well aware of Jesus and expected problems. There was an uprising in the city where Jesus was ultimately captured by a cohort (half a legion) or men and tried. The Roman and Sadducees both feared him while much of the populace viewed him as the rightful king as noted by Pilate. He was punished by a Roman, for a Roman crime, and with a Roman punishment. Oddly when the crowd was asked who to save (that was never a Jewish tradition and certainly they wouldn't have to be reminded of it by a Roman) the other man is name Barabbas ie bar abbas, son of the father most likely a young man and generally only used in presence of the man's father so possibly the son of Jesus himself.

Jesus may or may not have died as he didn't hang for nearly long enough to die assuming he was a healthly middle-aged man. Usually a man could live for as long as 3 days dying of dehydration primarily. Quite alot has been written about this period of time as it was followed by the Great Revolt and the destruction of the second Temple. The famous or infamous destruction/suicide at Masada occurs at the end of the Revolt. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls fill the time between the Hasmonean Dynasty and the departure of the Romans from Israel. In all likelihood they were hidden at some point during that Revolt as a means to protect them from the maruading Romans.

Personally I believe there was a "historical Jesus" based on my reading. However, that Jesus was a traditional Jew probably with a connection to a royal lineage and particularly upset with the Romans and Gentiles disrupting and occupying his nation. Its more or less the textbook revitalization movement that would be later lifted and altered by Romans intent of creating and competing with successful religion of the 4th century like Mithras, Eostre, the Greek and Roman gods, Isis, and the Germanic/Teutonic panthenon such as Odin.

This is just a quick overview. I might be able to address specific questions more efficiently. It will take me a good while to dig out my books as they're packed up. I did nearly all my research pre-internet so I don't have links rather only written material.

[rusmeister]

Against all better judgement...I quickly looked through the last few pages of the thread here.

In 1st century Judea, the Jews were a factious kin-based (closely tied to their protohistorical tribes) agro-pastoralists. They couldn't agree on virtually any subject (an incredibly common occurence) except on most of their defining religious aspects. The Roman conquest of the Near East, however, helped to unify the factions rather well. The Hasmonean Kings replaced by the Herods after the conflict between Julius Caeser and Pompey created a sort of proxy war that installed Herod the Great as the de facto leader of the region.

However much of the Hasmonean power remained in Northern Israel. Jesus spent a great deal of time in and around the Sea of Galilee which was the center of their military power. The majority of Jews would fight the Romans tooth and nail in a serious of minor and major revolts for the next 150 years or so.

Now taking the Bible into a temporal and cultural context would change the appearance of things significantly. Many problems arise because of the relative lateness and inaccuracy of the New Testament Gospels. They go into great detail in describing Jesus as the human heir of King David. This is important for the Jews to restablish a royal figurehead to unify the factions I mentioned earlier. The Sadducees were particularly opposed to Jesus as king because they were the ruling party closely allied with Roman rule (not the Pharisees who would be the ruling party some 100 years later showing the likely time period from which the Gospels were originally written).

Jesus was not from Nazareth but possibly a Nazarene as Nazareth didn't exist a village/town until about 300 years later according to archaeological evidence. Now Jesus was/ascribed to be an heir of David and would go through the Jewish marriage customs with a Hasmonean relative from the tribe of Benjamin, now known as Mary Magdalane. No Jewish leader worth following would go unmarried nor practice all the marriage rituals without being married. Before anyone cites the "DaVinci Code" you should know this was noted and documented centuries ago and the Jews have known it even longer but no one ever seems to ask the Jews about one of their own, curiously. Of course this fits rather logically with the so called "lost years" as he would be raising men, gathering weapons and information and having a family assuming he adhered to any aspect of Jewish culture.

It was vital for Jesus to receive the approval of John the Baptist and marry a relative of the Hasmoneans. Now he would have the support of all but the Herods(who technically ruled alongside the Roman governor) and the Sadducees. His leadership was formed of Zealots including Simon and Judas the Dagger both Northerners and guerilla fighters. Jesus would drive out the demon "legion" possibly symbolizing the conflict. In the plain text Jesus also despised Gentiles as did many Jews who viewed them much like the Romans as carpet-baggers and often in Roman employ. He mentions that they are unworthy of even table scraps and so forth.

Being well aware of Old Testament scripture, Jesus and his followers went to great lengths to propagate the prophecies of a messiah (the Jews have had dozens of messiahs and have used most of the same set of prophecies to predict their arrival and coincedentially they pop up during great cultural upheaval like the Babylonian Exile, Roman rule, bondage in Egypt and so on.) Jesus entered Jerusalem during Passover when more than a million Jews would be in the ancient city. So many in fact that Pilate called for extra military units, somewhere around 3 legions, be sent to the city in case of trouble.

Having caused trouble in the countryside, the Romans were well aware of Jesus and expected problems. There was an uprising in the city where Jesus was ultimately captured by a cohort (half a legion) or men and tried. The Roman and Sadducees both feared him while much of the populace viewed him as the rightful king as noted by Pilate. He was punished by a Roman, for a Roman crime, and with a Roman punishment. Oddly when the crowd was asked who to save (that was never a Jewish tradition and certainly they wouldn't have to be reminded of it by a Roman) the other man is name Barabbas ie bar abbas, son of the father most likely a young man and generally only used in presence of the man's father so possibly the son of Jesus himself.

Jesus may or may not have died as he didn't hang for nearly long enough to die assuming he was a healthly middle-aged man. Usually a man could live for as long as 3 days dying of dehydration primarily. Quite alot has been written about this period of time as it was followed by the Great Revolt and the destruction of the second Temple. The famous or infamous destruction/suicide at Masada occurs at the end of the Revolt. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls fill the time between the Hasmonean Dynasty and the departure of the Romans from Israel. In all likelihood they were hidden at some point during that Revolt as a means to protect them from the maruading Romans.

Personally I believe there was a "historical Jesus" based on my reading. However, that Jesus was a traditional Jew probably with a connection to a royal lineage and particularly upset with the Romans and Gentiles disrupting and occupying his nation. Its more or less the textbook revitalization movement that would be later lifted and altered by Romans intent of creating and competing with successful religion of the 4th century like Mithras, Eostre, the Greek and Roman gods, Isis, and the Germanic/Teutonic panthenon such as Odin.

This is just a quick overview. I might be able to address specific questions more efficiently. It will take me a good while to dig out my books as they're packed up. I did nearly all my research pre-internet so I don't have links rather only written material.

KS, your treatise sounds very erudite and has plenty of details.
However, it starts with ad hoc assumptions that you take as given that do have refutations.
Have you read "The Everlasting Man"? I assume not. www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html

"inaccuracies in the Gospels".
"this is important for the Jews to establish a royal figurehead"
"according to archaeological evidence"
assuming a marriage with Mary Magdalene
"gathering weapons" and everything else that ignores the central teachings that drove the Gospels
"Jesus also despised gentiles"
"Jesus may or may not have died"
"competing with 'successful' religions of the 4th century"

Since you start with these falsehoods and inaccuracies as operating assumptions, it seems improbable that we could have fruitful dialog. That's why I challenge you to give that book a whirl. It'd save a hundred and fifty posts going back and forth and enable you to see (and if you still wanted to) challenge the root views - which I share with Chesterton - which show the impossibility of your conclusions, however detailed.

[Xar]

Just chiming in... I found KS's short treatise rather erudite as well, but rus, if you wish to argue about it with him - which would make a rather interesting discussion, I would say - I would kindly suggest you refrain from calling his assumptions "falsehoods and inaccuracies", however... it already sets up a confrontational tone which ill suits the topic, in my opinion.

Also, you have extensively quoted and cited "The Everlasting Man" in several posts in the Close; however, seeing as how Kin posted a lengthy description based on his own research, and did not quote any books even though he could have, I believe it would be more interesting - also for the casual visitors of the Close who stumbled on this discussion - if you also avoided citing books and instead relied on your own knowledge directly in order to provide a counterpoint to Kin's topic.

That said, since the original thread wasn't about Jesus's historical existence or nature, I'm splitting this topic...

[rusmeister]

Just chiming in... I found KS's short treatise rather erudite as well, but rus, if you wish to argue about it with him - which would make a rather interesting discussion, I would say - I would kindly suggest you refrain from calling his assumptions "falsehoods and inaccuracies", however... it already sets up a confrontational tone which ill suits the topic, in my opinion.

Also, you have extensively quoted and cited "The Everlasting Man" in several posts in the Close; however, seeing as how Kin posted a lengthy description based on his own research, and did not quote any books even though he could have, I believe it would be more interesting - also for the casual visitors of the Close who stumbled on this discussion - if you also avoided citing books and instead relied on your own knowledge directly in order to provide a counterpoint to Kin's topic.

That said, since the original thread wasn't about Jesus's historical existence or nature, I'm splitting this topic...

Xar, I can't call them anything but what they are. They are lies, but I don't believe that he intends deliberate deceit so am not making any personal charges against him or anyone else. I am addressing the notions, not the person.

It sounds good to say, Put everything into your own words." Unfortunately, it essentially says that no sources of knowledge and wisdom may be cited and that everything be completely rephrased in one's own words. If the same requirements were imposed on a physicist attempting to explain an advanced theory, he would have to go through and personally explain all principles of physics ever developed on which his theory stands, which might take years if he were forced to rewrite everything in his own words. In this case the arguments are manifold, I am doing this in my spare time (which I don't have that much of) and know that if any body of knowledge is to be defended, it must be possible to make references. Kins is indeed referencing other sources, but they come across as wild nonsense or at the very least sheer unsupported speculation without any reference. Pseudo-science also sounds very erudite.

TEM is a huge essay which connects the various dots that most of us were taught in school to reveal a picture - one that makes sense both of man's uniqueness and ways in which he is like no other animal, and on Christ's uniqueness, and the way he is startling like no other man who ever existed, and which, taken together, make sense of the whole of history. Kins focuses on details which, besides being false, completely miss those essential facts. However, because it touches on the nature of man, a broad cross-section of what we know of history, and finally the place of Christ in that history, it cannot be sound-bit into a couple of posts.
I by no means take TEM as an exclusive source. Of course there are many other things that firmly convince me of the falsehood of Kins' "facts".

I readily admit that I am not the best champion of Christianity, and am willing, as time permits, to deal with separate issues and say what I can on my own. But as long as you avoid dealing with one that I do defer to as one of the better (modern) champions, and hide behind the shield of "tell us yourself!", then you cannot say that you have really encountered the best arguments and defenses of the Faith. If you really want to prove the theory of relativity wrong, you should prove Einstein wrong, not merely one of his students. (Although for me, the Faith does not depend only on modern apologists like Chesterton and Lewis. But they do deal directly with the fallacies that keep cropping up in regard to Christianity, and so, are highly relevant to all of these discussions. Two-thirds of the nonsense spoken in these threads against Christianity would never be spoken, as people would know which claims were inherently weak.)

[Loredoctor]

If you really want to prove the theory of relativity wrong, you should prove Einstein wrong, not merely one of his students.

You do not understand science, rusmeister. You do not prove a theory right or wrong - in that using words like 'proof' is dangerous because of the 'weight' it carries - by doing anything to the theorist. The theorist him or herself is valueless compared to the theory at hand. All theories can only be supported or not supported through analysis. To take your metaphor, one would have to run scientific experiments where the data does disputes relativity.

Off topic: Relativity happens to be one of the most supported theories on the planet. Inumerable experiments repeatedly show that Einstein's theory is 'spot on'.

[StevieG]

Xar, I can't call them anything but what they are. They are lies, but I don't believe that he intends deliberate deceit so am not making any personal charges against him or anyone else. I am addressing the notions, not the person.

It sounds good to say, Put everything into your own words." Unfortunately, it essentially says that no sources of knowledge and wisdom may be cited and that everything be completely rephrased in one's own words. If the same requirements were imposed on a physicist attempting to explain an advanced theory, he would have to go through and personally explain all principles of physics ever developed on which his theory stands, which might take years if he were forced to rewrite everything in his own words. In this case the arguments are manifold, I am doing this in my spare time (which I don't have that much of) and know that if any body of knowledge is to be defended, it must be possible to make references. Kins is indeed referencing other sources, but they come across as wild nonsense or at the very least sheer unsupported speculation without any reference. Pseudo-science also sounds very erudite.

TEM is a huge essay which connects the various dots that most of us were taught in school to reveal a picture - one that makes sense both of man's uniqueness and ways in which he is like no other animal, and on Christ's uniqueness, and the way he is startling like no other man who ever existed, and which, taken together, make sense of the whole of history. Kins focuses on details which, besides being false, completely miss those essential facts. However, because it touches on the nature of man, a broad cross-section of what we know of history, and finally the place of Christ in that history, it cannot be sound-bit into a couple of posts.
I by no means take TEM as an exclusive source. Of course there are many other things that firmly convince me of the falsehood of Kins' "facts".

I readily admit that I am not the best champion of Christianity, and am willing, as time permits, to deal with separate issues and say what I can on my own. But as long as you avoid dealing with one that I do defer to as one of the better (modern) champions, and hide behind the shield of "tell us yourself!", then you cannot say that you have really encountered the best arguments and defenses of the Faith. If you really want to prove the theory of relativity wrong, you should prove Einstein wrong, not merely one of his students. (Although for me, the Faith does not depend only on modern apologists like Chesterton and Lewis. But they do deal directly with the fallacies that keep cropping up in regard to Christianity, and so, are highly relevant to all of these discussions. Two-thirds of the nonsense spoken in these threads against Christianity would never be spoken, as people would know which claims were inherently weak.)

Wow, that's defensive. Can't you paraphrase TEM? Being an archaeologist (I assume), I'm sure Kins has some references.

[variol son]

KS, your treatise sounds very erudite and has plenty of details.
However, it starts with ad hoc assumptions that you take as given that do have refutations.
Have you read "The Everlasting Man"? I assume not. www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html

"inaccuracies in the Gospels".
"this is important for the Jews to establish a royal figurehead"
"according to archaeological evidence"
assuming a marriage with Mary Magdalene
"gathering weapons" and everything else that ignores the central teachings that drove the Gospels
"Jesus also despised gentiles"
"Jesus may or may not have died"
"competing with 'successful' religions of the 4th century"

Since you start with these falsehoods and inaccuracies as operating assumptions, it seems improbable that we could have fruitful dialog. That's why I challenge you to give that book a whirl. It'd save a hundred and fifty posts going back and forth and enable you to see (and if you still wanted to) challenge the root views - which I share with Chesterton - which show the impossibility of your conclusions, however detailed.

Can you not simply provide examples from The Everlasting Man, be they paraphrased or directly quoted, that demonstrate why you believe that each other the examples you have listed above is false and inaccurate? Or, since you don't have a lot of time, you could do so for just one of the examples.

I ask because if you aren't going to do so then I'm not sure why you continue to post here in the Close. We've all read time and again that we should read Chesterton or Lewis, and those with the inclination to follow such advise will have done so already.

[Kinslaughterer]

"Since you start with these falsehoods and inaccuracies as operating assumptions"

Here is the issue. You have to understand what early Jewish/Roman/Near Eastern culture was like and how it functioned. The problem actually arises from the assumptions of apologists who place a modern interpretation on ancient events. I'm describing these events from a dozen historians including Flavius Josepheus, a real life Jewish historian who is most likely a contemporary.

Most importantly, I'm nor arguing with the Church, they are arguing with documented history and culture. I won't have time to dig out my books until probably this evening at the earliest.

[rdhopeca]

This could get very interesting, KS. Rus would say the exact opposite (I think), that Orthodox Christianity is the truth and anyone arguing with him is arguing with documented history et al.

Personally, I tend to question any historical account, regardless of who writes it. I am sure someone will say then no one knows the truth, but that's probably the case. History has bias, and victors of wars be they religious or philosophical or conquest-oriented, and the victors write the history.

I have said before, I am willing to concede that Jesus existed, I'm just not willing to concede he is anything but another human being, albeit a charismatic one. Perhaps in 2000 years someone will look back and decide that L. Ron Hubbard is a deity also, assuming that Scientology lasts that long. And when we get there, who will still be around from today to debunk that theory?

[aliantha]

Rus, despite your protestations to the contrary, you are skating very close to calling Kins a liar. I understand that you believe you know The Truth, and that you're anxious to share it with everyone here, but your position would be *much* better served if you would couch your comments in different terms. (i.e., not "Kins' statements are lies," but "Orthodoxy holds that his statements are lies" or something to that effect.)

[SoulBiter]

I agree. I think this topic can be a learning experience for everyone (Im hoping to see more posting on this) but only if we coach our debates in debate terms.

It would be helpful to refute what you dont believe to be true. However your side of the debate cant be: you must read (insert list of books here) before we can even begin a dialog on this. Otherwise why bother posting that you dont agree with it if you arent willing to debate it.

[Menolly]

Rus, put simply (really simply, I know I'm leaving a lot of nuance on the table), all religion is about salvation. Whether we're talking Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism, or whatever. And every religion has a set of guidelines (if you will) on how to achieve salvation.

...sorry, new to thread.

The above statement is definitely not true of Judaism, Cail. As I said in the 7 Biblical Feasts thread, the 613 commandments, the Talmud, and all other teachings from the Jewish sages are guides on how to fill the mundane with holiness in the here and now. That's all. Salvation does not enter the picture, at all.

Chr-stianity may have taken the same teachings and applied other meaning to them, but those interpretations do not apply in Judaism.

Frankly I think there is little doubt that someone named Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem approx. 2000 years ago.

Only questions at this point probably should be:

1. Was he in fact the Messiah? Hard to prove scientifically one way or the other.

2. Were the events recorded in the New Testament actually as large as they sounded, or was this crucifiction just a relatively minor event in the annuals of Roman and Judean history (much as the hanging and such were back in the days of the American West) in which a young Rabbi was hanged for blasphamy and sedation.

Again, from a post in the 7 Biblical Feasts thread...

My understanding of the messiah is that he is among us at any time, only non-aware. Any of the "pretenders" of the past (I am not saying JC was a "pretender", just since I do not believe moshiach has come yet...arrgh...I am saying this badly, just know I mean no offense) could have been that era's designated messiah. Moshiach is a descendant of David, righteous, who will see the third temple built and the following happen during his ascendancy:

• Peace among all nations (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)
  Perfect harmony and abundance in nature (Isaiah 11:6-9) (but some interpret this as an allegory for peace and prosperity)
  All Jews return from exile to Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5)
  Universal acceptance of the Jewish G-d and Jewish religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; 66:23; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9)
  No sin or evil; all Israel will obey the commandments (Zephaniah 3:13; Ezekiel 37:24)

which is a pretty hard bar to set, and has yet to be met.

He is not divine.
He is not born to a virgin.
He is not the son of HaShem.
He is not a savior nor a redeemer.
He is a normal mortal, gifted with the knowledge of what must be done when the time comes to do it.

That is my understanding of moshiach.
May he come soon...

So, to answer question 1, he may have been, for his generation. But like all the others that have existed, and whomever the current one may be, they have yet to meet the "requirements" for being the Messiah, in the eyes of traditional Judaism.

(IIRC, some sects of Judaism suggest that there is such a messiah living in each generation of people, so Jesus could well have been such a one if your beliefs lean that way.)

heh.
See above, posted just a few hours before yours...
As far as I am aware, it is not "some sects" of Judaism, but a traditional kabbalistic mysticism belief.

*will sit back and read with continued interest*

[Seven Words]

Frankly I think there is little doubt that someone named Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem approx. 2000 years ago.

Only questions at this point probably should be:

1. Was he in fact the Messiah? Hard to prove scientifically one way or the other.

2. Were the events recorded in the New Testament actually as large as they sounded, or was this crucifiction just a relatively minor event in the annuals of Roman and Judean history (much as the hanging and such were back in the days of the American West) in which a young Rabbi was hanged for blasphamy and sedation.

You're assuming that the vents as recorded in the New Testament are ACCURATE records of things which ACTUALLY happened. An earlier post mentioned eyewitness accounts as how we know about Pompeii being buried (which is NOT true), and according the eyewitness nature of the Bible as rendering it as factual as Pompeii. There is Pompeii itself, buried. We have NO corroboration for anything supernatural/magical/divine (pick your adjective depending on your own beliefs) outside of the Bible itself. I am equally doubtful of many of the Old Testament records. In particular, the Exodus (This is NOT changing the subject, simply an example) lacking any non-religuous evidence. Egyptian history from the time period shows NO records of a mass escape of a slave nation. I've heard the argument that "Of course they wouldn't record something so embarassing and damaging to their prestige". Valid point....except other cultures around at that time WOULD have heard of it (if for no other reason than the sheer NUMBERS involved)...yet none of Egypt's rivals record this, either...and THEY would certainly be positively gleeful about ANYTHING untoward happening to Egypt (like, oh...1980's news reports of ANY problems in US being Pravda headlines demonstrating Soviet superiority...or vice versa). There is no such record. I am categorically NOT saying this is proof the Exodus is a lie. There is no objective evidence, AT THIS TIME to support it, nor is there any objective evidence to refute it. The LACK of evidence makes it logically improbable, but not disproved. There is no objective proof of any of the Bible's spiritual/theological/supernatural (again, adjective of choice) assertions.

[Kinslaughterer]

That's the funny thing about archaeology...no matter what someone wishes to hide, whoever they are or whatever banal little item it can tell us a great deal about a culture, a period of time, or even an individual.

Take the Garbage Project for instance. Bill Rathje (I think he's still with us) out of Arizona began recording the garbage of modern folks. He had grad students take the trash from suburban Phoenix and Tucson (The GP was much larger and long term, this was just a small piece) and then spoke to and recorded information about the people. One of the questions was "How much alcohol do you consume in a week?" Nearly everyone lied and underestimated some significantly. On average they were drinking 3 to 5 more beverages of beer, wine, or harder stuff.

Interestingly, virtually no archaeological evidence of the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt exists. 3500 years is a long time but the arid climate and stone, metal, and bone would remain. Its looking more likely that the Hebrews were in fact the Hyksos who invaded Egypt and ultimately defeated as the first noticable Hebrew peoples appear about 100-200 years after the Hyksos defeat.

[Rawedge Rim]

Frankly I think there is little doubt that someone named Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem approx. 2000 years ago.

Only questions at this point probably should be:

1. Was he in fact the Messiah? Hard to prove scientifically one way or the other.

2. Were the events recorded in the New Testament actually as large as they sounded, or was this crucifiction just a relatively minor event in the annuals of Roman and Judean history (much as the hanging and such were back in the days of the American West) in which a young Rabbi was hanged for blasphamy and sedation.

You're assuming that the vents as recorded in the New Testament are ACCURATE records of things which ACTUALLY happened. An earlier post mentioned eyewitness accounts as how we know about Pompeii being buried (which is NOT true), and according the eyewitness nature of the Bible as rendering it as factual as Pompeii. There is Pompeii itself, buried. We have NO corroboration for anything supernatural/magical/divine (pick your adjective depending on your own beliefs) outside of the Bible itself. I am equally doubtful of many of the Old Testament records. In particular, the Exodus (This is NOT changing the subject, simply an example) lacking any non-religuous evidence. Egyptian history from the time period shows NO records of a mass escape of a slave nation. I've heard the argument that "Of course they wouldn't record something so embarassing and damaging to their prestige". Valid point....except other cultures around at that time WOULD have heard of it (if for no other reason than the sheer NUMBERS involved)...yet none of Egypt's rivals record this, either...and THEY would certainly be positively gleeful about ANYTHING untoward happening to Egypt (like, oh...1980's news reports of ANY problems in US being Pravda headlines demonstrating Soviet superiority...or vice versa). There is no such record. I am categorically NOT saying this is proof the Exodus is a lie. There is no objective evidence, AT THIS TIME to support it, nor is there any objective evidence to refute it. The LACK of evidence makes it logically improbable, but not disproved. There is no objective proof of any of the Bible's spiritual/theological/supernatural (again, adjective of choice) assertions.

I'm not assuming anything. I merely stated that it is likely that a 30 year old or so Rabbi named Yeshua who was probably crucified sometime around the year 30 AD or so by the Romans, possibly at the behest of the existing Jewish authorities.

As for Exodus, well, a party of Hebrews might have revolted and ran off back then, but I doubt it was the hundreds of thousands as decribed in the Old Testament, as I believe that that many wanderers in the desert might have been noticed by others in the area.

[CovenantJr]

I am going to join the several others who have posted here in making some points that I think need be heeded:

1) Do not call another poster a liar, or their views lies. This is at best unacceptably rude. It is also, as far as I can see, a supremely defensive and wilfully subjective way of saying you disagree with the points but don't want to try and refute them.

How much would you, rusmeister, appreciate my saying 'your post is a lie' each time you post any of your beliefs (or 'truths', as you maintain)? You can say your views are true, and I can say they are lies. We can do this over and over, and never achieve anything. So I'd ask that instead of rather belligerently describing Kinslaughterer's painstakingly constructed analysis of a historical/archaeological slant on Biblical events as lies, you instead point out what exactly you consider to be inaccurate, and why. KS showed you sufficient respect to carefully summon and organise his information; to baselessly dismiss his thoughts as falsehood appears arrogant and ignorant.

2) Please quote, paraphrase, or give examples from the texts you believe are relevant. While it may be useful (if inappropriately dismissive) to recommend that an opponent in a debate read a particular text, the Close is not a one-on-one debate. Others are following the discussion and will weigh in when they have something to contribute. Expecting everyone who reads this topic to seek out and read a text before you will even consent to meaningful dialogue is neither reasonable nor helpful. At best, it seems like intellectual laziness; at worst, it can be seen as deperate misdirection and smokescreening. Whichever way one interprets your unqualified linking to 'The Everlasting Man', there is little room to doubt that it helps no-one, not even you. If you suggest we all read a particular text, your case would be well served by giving us an illustration of why; KS has done this well, by bringing to bear his own knowledge (with admirable care, I might add) and offering to provide more detail and specific references when he is able to access his books. You have pointed out the parts of KS's post you consider inaccurate, but neglected to tell us how they are 'falsehoods', or offered any support for your accusation. KS has enough respect for the debate, and his fellow participants therein, to both explain his stance and dig out relevant works for reference purposes. Would his post have been so informative if he had said simply "Read this link"? No. No it would not.

An earlier post mentioned eyewitness accounts as how we know about Pompeii being buried (which is NOT true), and according the eyewitness nature of the Bible as rendering it as factual as Pompeii. There is Pompeii itself, buried.

Indeed. This is the thing that puzzles me most about rusmeister's repeated citation of Pompeii as an analogy to the purported accuracy of the Bible as a historical document. Pompeii is there, physically. While the exact events may indeed be reported only in a contemporary written source, there is physical evidence that corroborates this source to some extent.

Of course, if I were to address this oddity in the way rusmeister seems to favour, I would say:

The same general evidence on which we accept the accounts of the destruction of Pompeii. or any other historical event. Eyewitness reports.

This is a lie.

[Fist and Faith]

Are there non-religious reasons to believe that the words ascribed to Jesus were actually spoken by Jesus?

Are there non-religious reasons to believe that the words ascribed to Buddha, Mohammed, and Krishna were not actually spoken by them?

My thinking is that these guys were all historical figures. Although I suppose it's possible, I don't think it's likely that such movements/systems of belief came about without someone at their core. But I'm wondering if there are non-religious reasons - that is, reasons that exist before that religion is accepted - to believe the words of the person at the core were not, at the very least, embellished.

[Orlion]

Are there non-religious reasons to believe that the words ascribed to Jesus were actually spoken by Jesus?

Are there non-religious reasons to believe that the words ascribed to Buddha, Mohammed, and Krishna were not actually spoken by them?

My thinking is that these guys were all historical figures. Although I suppose it's possible, I don't think it's likely that such movements/systems of belief came about without someone at their core. But I'm wondering if there are non-religious reasons - that is, reasons that exist before that religion is accepted - to believe the words of the person at the core were not, at the very least, embellished.

I believe it is probably similar to what we may consider the words of Socrates. It is almost certain that the early-socratic dialouges are not the words of Socrates verbatim, however it is popular scholarly opinion that they are a fair representation of the actual teachings of Socrates. But as Plato continued writing, he began to use Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas instead of writing about his teachings. I believe the gospels are the same. The first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) possibly approach the meaning and teachings of the historic Jesus, however, later writers, such as Gnostics (Some include the gospel of John in this) began to use Jesus as a mouthpiece for their own ideas instead of writing what Jesus may have taught.