I'd like to be involed in this one, but my Lutheran faith is VERY clear about this.
The belief in some form of existence after death is central to almost all religious beliefs, in fact it has been stated that the chief appeal of all religions lies in the promise of immortality and often that that other life will offer a pardisical existence for the followers of that religion.
The question then arises whether or not the possibility of an existence after death can be scientifically investigated, and what kind of evidence can be brought to bear for or against such a proposal.
For my own part, I think there is a lot of evidence that can be gathered against such a possibility, and no real tangible evidence in support of it. The traditional arguments in support of immortality, to me, seem to boil down to the sentiment "If I cannot live forever, than the universe is unfair!"
One of the many questions that I would ask of those who believe in life after death is - does this life after death exist for all living creatures or just humans? If it exists for humans alone, then what do humans have that sets them apart from other living creatures?
Revoke original statement.
No Proof? Near death experiances usually match up with one another(It's an objective issue, we must all have the same afterlife) and even some have appeared to have gone to Hell. Also The Gospels report that Appearnces of Jesus after his death were seen by many wittnesses. That would pass in our legal system. As for other living beings, I can not tell you because I have not been told. Life after Death is matter that relies on Faith. It is also an issue of Revealed Truth. Faith does not need proof. If Faith had proof, everyone would belive, and that is not the case.
Why Humans are different is because God made them with a Soul but with Mortal substance. Other beings that have souls are Immortal (Angles, Demons, minor spirits) and cannot die. Beings without souls do not understand death. They do not need to know their fates.
>Near death experiences usually match up with one another
Actually, they tend to differ in many important respects. For instance, some Christians who have had near-death experiences have claimed to see Jesus. The same would not be true of say, an Islamite. Near-death experiences tend to conform with what the person who undergoes them beileved about the afterlife, which tends to suggest that they are imaginary in nature (I certainly would not put too much stock in any visions I had while I was in a near-death state, any more than I do the reality of my dreams).
>Also, the Gospels report that appearances of Jesus after his death were seen by many witnesses. That would pass in our legal system.
The four Gospels differ on several important details regarding the post-ressurection apperences, mainly who saw Jesus and under what circumstances. A good court of law would demand an explanation for these contradictions. Also, the fact that these accounts were written many years after the fact, that the events they relate contain features of long-held mythic traditions, and that those events are not corraborated by any history that was written during the time they were supposed to have happened would tend to cast doubt on the veracity of the story.
Uh, what are we thinking here? Islamite? Where did this term come from? The term for a follower of Islam is a Muslim.
I hold the following position: There's no proof one way or the other, and we can't reall test it, as the condition needed to produce results is rather permanent, so I'll just wait till I get there to find out and not worry about it otherwise.
Near-death experiences? I don't base anything on them, as they, as Todd noted, are not all the same and possibly nothing to do with God at all (lighter note: remember that Far Side with the doctors playing with a woman in an operation by using a flashlight and saying "Walk down the tunnel...")
But the afterlife is something that absolutely has no evidence against it. Life is not fair that we can't live forever. Who would want to in this world? The afterlife, "heaven", as I call it, makes that happen, anyway, as eternity comes to us all, someway.
The statements in the Gospel are relatively different, but who said they had to be the same? That would mean they were exactly the same, and there would be no point. Each Gospel fills in gaps not explained in the other about this event, and add a different interpretation, in my opinion.
Animals are both cursed and blessed. While they do not experience the same "afterlife" as humanity (although really I don't know, the Bible isn't that clear, nor does it have to be), they do not have to follow the laws of humans or moral code. The Bible expects this, and tells us not to behave like them, not that they are evil, but we are expected moree from.
The Christian concept of the afterlife is explained in Revelation. Those that believe and accept in Jesus go to eternal life, those that did not go to eternal sorrow.
"Also, the fact that these accounts were written many years after the fact..."
Many? I remember the dates to be around 50 years and less after Christ's resurrection. Of course, you have your own sources which say otherwise =)
"...that the events they relate contain features of long-held mythic traditions..."
Features? You mean it must be completely unique to be valid? You have much more faith in the originality of the human mind than I =)
"...and that those events are not corraborated by any history that was written during the time they were supposed to have happened would tend to cast doubt on the veracity of the story."
There are two or three outside accounts of Jesus' death. What kind of corroboration do you mean?
"Also, the fact that these accounts were written many years after the fact..."
Many? The numbers I've heard are about 50 (for Revelations) and under. Of course, you have your own sources which say otherwise =)
"...that the events they relate contain features of long-held mythic traditions..."
So to be authentic something must be completely original in all aspects? You have greater faith in human originality than I =)
"...and that those events are not corraborated by any history that was written during the time they were supposed to have happened would tend to cast doubt on the veracity of the story."
I know of two or three outside sources which relate Jesus' death. What kind of corroboration are you looking for?
Aaarrrrrggghhhh! =)
>I know of two or three outside sources which relate Jesus' death.
Which ones would those be?
What does it matter if there's life after death? Life is for living, and death is for dying, and why worry about things that may or may not exist? Shouldn't we be living for ourselves, for today, instead of worrying about what tomorrow holds in store for us?
Yes, but we at Nitcentral love to argue… :-)
This is the last you'll hear from me on the subject. My views are stated in my previous post and I don't feel I have any more to say. If you lose focus on now, then you'll wind up dying a bum. Not real glamorous.
Well, the fundamentalists tell us that we should worry about life after death - they tell us that our status in that realm will depend on certain choices we make and/or virtues we display in this life. And as I said before, many people's religious beliefs are driven primarily by a fear of death and what lies beyond than of a love of the things in life. So I think that makes it a topic relevant to this board.
Look at it this way. If there is life after death (as I belive) them the more good things you do and the better a person you are, the better your status will be. And if there isn't, then you'll be remembered by the living for what you did and again, people will think better of people who do good things and were good people. So if the things you should do are basically the same whether or not there's an afterlife, there's really no point in worrying about it. We'll find out soon enough anyway.
Okay, so that wasn't my last post. You people know I can't resist a good argument when i'm convinced I'm right. :-)
I remember a story about Heaven. A man went to Heaven and found a great palace in his name, with thousands of treasures. He asked God what it was for--"That is for the many good things you did in your life," the Lord said. Then, he saw an even bigger palace with millions of treasures. He asked God what that was for--"That is for the many more good things you COULD have done in your life," the Lord said.
However, the Christian faith does not concern itself with "acts", according to its main tenet, but rather belief. Acts should come naturally after belief.
Well it seems to me that if I am immortal, and will outlast my mortal flesh, then this is a fact of nature, a quality which all humans share, and cannot be altered by my actions here in this life. How then, can either my beliefs or my actions (good or bad) influence my state in the hereafter?
According to the Bible, those that believed that Jesus Christ died for their sins and that He rose again, and accept Him as their Saviour, they will go to the Lord's Kingdom of Heaven. Those that don't will go to the Pit of Fire.
Other religions have similar approaches. Very few religions say that "you just die", as that would make them rather bizarre religions.
Although a lot of Bible verses support that, there are others which state that good works or a moral life will serve one well in the afterlife. In Matthew 19:16-18 Jesus tells a man that to have eternal life all one must do is follow the Ten Commandments. He said nothing about belief or faith in anything. In John 5:28-29 it is said that the saved and the damned will be determined by those who have done good versus those who have done evil. In Matthew 16:27 it is said "The Son of Man is to come with angels in the glory of His Father, and then he shall reward every man according to his works." II Corinthians 5:10 states that people will be judged in the afterlife based on their good or bad works. And there are many other verses as well, which show that salvation may be obtained through works. Several verses in James chapter two state that one's faith means nothing without good works to support it, and indicate that faith without works will not save one. (Actually, faith itself is a work or a deed of a sort, one must do something (believe) in order to be saved.
There is a lot of Biblical confusion regarding salvation. To give some idea:
People are saved merely by believing in Jesus. No other belief or action is required.
According to: John 3:15-16, 36, 6:40,47, 11:25; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9; I John 5:12; Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13
But wait! One must also repent one's sins, as told in Luke 13:3-5.
And must do good deeds or works - Matt. 25:34-40; John 5:28-29; Rom. 2:5-10; James 2:14-26
These other verses suggest one can be saved by merely being moral and charitable.
Matt. 19:16-17, 25:34-40,46; Mark 10:17-21; Luke 10:25-37, 18:18-22; John 5:28-29, 8:51; Rom. 2:5-7, 10; James 2:24.
But all these are contrasted by the following negative verses which state that one CANNOT be saved who does not believe in Jesus: Mark 16:16; John 3:18, 36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12
And yet we have still other verses that state that it is NECESSARY that one be baptized, practice communion, and receive the kingdom of God as a child: John 3:5, 6:53; Mark 10:15.
So taking this into account, it seems that not only belief but all these other things are required. Yet, as noted, there are verses that state that belief alone can save one and others that moral works alone are enough to save one. So it must be admitted that the issue of salvation is a confusing one, and it is no wonder that so many different Christian sects have formed throughout the ages.
First of all, using Old Testament and pre-Cross New Testament verses are silly: What could Jesus say--"Believe in me in about two months, after I am crucified, and oh--hmm...let me write down a bit of what will be Romans..." No, that would be needlessly bizarre.
Let's examine your points--
Belief in Jesus and Salvation: Yes, that is needed.
Repent of Sins: If one truly believes in what Jesus went through on the Cross (i.e., dying for your sins), I'm sure you will feel sorrow and want to repent them.
Good Deeds or Works: They should flow naturally after believing in Jesus, as that is what Jesus/God wants. Believing in Jesus, but not obeying what he wants is poor faith, at best.
Moral and Charitable: Most atheists say for people to be moral and charitable, too. This is just common sense, "love thy neighbor", etc. It should come naturally if one believes in Jesus' mesage.
Cannot Be Saved if Not Believe: Yes, I believe that part, for this is meaningless without belief, just like belief is meaningless without acts.
Baptize/Communion/Child: The child part refers to being "born again", I think. That simply refers to leading a new life when one is "saved". John 6:53 is a reference to blood and flesh, but I take it to mean "Nobody will live unless they accept my blood and flesh--on the Cross." Mark 10:15 has nothing of the sort, aside from "accepting God as a child would", i.e. "pure and innocently, without asking for anything for you."
There are many Christian sects. But one verse is pointless without taking a "big picture". I think most if not all Christian sects all agree on one thing: Belief in Jesus on the Cross. That, then, would be the most important tenet, and it is.
Sorry, I don't believe in Jesus as the Messiah, but I'm not going to Hell. So there!
Sorry, I don't believe in Jesus as the Messiah, but I'm not going to Hell. So there!
I'm not quite sure how to answer that. First of all, I didn't intend my summation of the Christian afterlife as any sort of "blast you to Hell" statement. Todd Pence asked what the definition of the Christian afterlife was. I told him.
I believe you are Jewish, right, Scott? Well, I don't believe in the Jewish faith. Nothing personal or anything, but that is my belief. You don't believe in the Christian faith. If I cannot persuade you, fine. Then, we can agree to disagree.
No problem. No offense was intended, even though I was a bit flip.
I recently had the (not so) lovely experience of being accosted by a stranger who asked me if I had accepted Jesus as my personal savior, and when I told him no and that I had no plans to, I was informed I was going to Hell...
Needless to say, this colored my opinions on that post. Again, to all, no offense was intended.
On the question of pre-cross and post-cross requirements for salvation:
What is the condition of all the people who lived before the time of Jesus? How did they attain salvation?
What about a small child who dies too young to fully comprehend the Gospel? Are they saved?
Do similar conditiions apply to the retarted and the insane?
What about people who live in foreign communities and have had little or no exposure to the Christian gospel. Is a person who lives out their life never hearing the Gospel, and then dies, saved or not?
I recently had the (not so) lovely experience of being accosted by a stranger who asked me if I had accepted Jesus as my personal savior, and when I told him no and that I had no plans to, I was informed I was going to Hell...
Funny, that was a joke on a Comedy Central special I once saw. Something with Margaret Cho. (Favorite quote: "I got fired from teaching Sunday School because I kept order like this. 'Okay, if one more person talks, then you're all going to Hell!' I used to keeps lists on the board of who was going to burn, you know?")
"What is the condition of all the people who lived before the time of Jesus? How did they attain salvation?"
This is what I believe - before Jesus, to have your sins forgiven and go to heaven, you had to follow all those laws set out in the OT. Jesus came and took the place of all those laws; now you have to believe in Him.
"What about a small child who dies too young to fully comprehend the Gospel? Are they saved? Do similar conditiions apply to the retarted and the insane?"
Unfortunately, I don't know of anywhere the Bible talks about this, so I can't give you an answer even I'd consider final. I like to think that a person must be able to consciously sin, and so be able to refuse to sin, before their soul comes into peril - but I could be wrong.
"Is a person who lives out their life never hearing the Gospel, and then dies, saved or not?"
Not. I do think God has ways to get the Gospel to those who will believe it, though, no matter how out of the loop they are.
BTW, I read all your verses and none of them appear contradictory to me - we're simply interpreting them in different ways. I'll get back to you on those sources; it may take me awhile to find enough time to go search for the reference.
Never mind! A web search did the trick. I refer you to:
http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/doubt.htm
Read it all if you want, but especially 'Historical Evidence Outside of the Bible.'
BTW, is there anyone here who believes someone named Jesus never existed? I had the impression that most non-Christians thought He lived, but that He wasn't the Son of God, etc.
I have stated many times on my radio show that Jesus never existed.
That's nice. You go back to playing with your strippers now, ya hear?
Howard! My first guest star! Not counting Chuck Darwin!
Re: Extra-Biblical historical sources -
Neither the Josephus or the Tacitus passages do more than chronicle the fact that there was a Christian movement. In addition, there are very few scholars, even Christian ones, who do not believe the Josephus quote is a forgery. A few of the pieces of evidence against it:
1. It was never quoted by any Christian writer before Eusebius (writing circa 300 A.D.)
2. Josephus nowhere else mentioned the name or word Christ, in any of his works, except (possibly) for a brief passage which may concern James the Just.
3. The passage interrupts the narrative it appears in, it appears between the detailing of two campaigns waged by Pilate against the Jews.
4. Josephus, a Jew, would not have beileved in Jesus as the Christ, and would not have referred to him so or have spoken of him in such glowing terms.
5. Early Christian writers such as Chrysostom Photius, and Clemens Alexandrinus do not quote it, although both refer to the works of Josephus many times in their texts.
6. Photius furthermore in his article on Justus of Tiberius, makes the statement, that Josephus "has not taken the least notice of Christ." Another Christian writer, Origen, affirms that Josephus "did not acknowledge Jesus Christ."
7. Eusebius, the first writer to mention this passage, is known to modern scholars to have been guilty of many instances of historical mendacity, including forgery. In chater 31, book 12 of his Prae Paratio Evangelica, he admits to having created or obscured facts to further the cause of Christ: "How far it may be proper to use falsehood as a medium for the benefit of those who require to be deceived . . . I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion."
The Tacitus passage has just as many problems.
1. Again, this passage is not quoted by any of the early Christian fathers.
2. It is not referred to by Tertullian, although he was a scholar of Tacitus and frequently quoted his works.
3. It is not quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, who set himself the task of collecting and anthologizing all the admissions and recognitions of Christianity made by pagan writers before his time.
4. Nor did the aforementioned Eusebius mention it (if it existed, it certainly would have saved him the trouble of forging the Joesephus passage!)
5. Again, Tacitus in no other of his writings has made the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians".
6. There is no trace of the existence of the Tacitus passage anywhere before the 15th century (an era notorious for its clercial forgeries).
7. At the time Jesus lived and Tacitus wrote, the word "Christ" was merely a title, which had more than passing use in those times. It would have meant little to the people of that time, since more than one person during that period had such a designation. It would be equivalent to a person today writing "During this time there lived a man known as the President." (the original disciples of what came to be known as the Christian religion were first called Christians at Antioch because "Christian" was a designation applied at that time as a term of honor given a respected person. (The word "christian" is used only three times in the NT, and never by the followers of Jesus themselves).
As to the question of whether Jesus existed, yes I believe that probably such a man existed, just as there was probably a real man on which was based the legend of Hercules, just as the real-life Dr. Joseph Bell was a model for the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. Unfortunately, Jesus' story, like Hercules and others of his time, is so innuandated with myth that the truth about him is impossible to know.
People who never hear the Gospel cannot be saved? That's an awfully hard doctrine.
I'm sure there are many scientists who believe those references are no good, and many who believe they are valid. Arguing about them won't get us anywhere, and I guess there's no point anyway - you already believe there was a Jesus, albeit not the Biblical one.
As for hard doctrine: I guess there are two ways of looking at it.
1. All these unfortunate 'innocents' are going to Hell because they didn't hear the Gospel. What a horrible God, what a horrible religion, etc.
2. We all were going to Hell (except those few Jews who kept the law), but then Jesus died and now those who just believe in Him can go to Heaven! He has saved billions from everlasting torment, and the numbers are still climbing! Hallelujah, praise God!
I think too many people, even Christians, get caught up in view #1 and forget view #2.
>Arguing about them won't get us anywhere
I don't agree, such an argument enables us both to present all the facts relating to the issue under discussion and maybe educate each other and the others reading. Knowledge is important after all, and the most positive thing that comes out of a debate is the increase in knowledge for both parties involved.
Besides, if I can clear up a misconception that someone has (such as that there are contemporary extra-Biblical references to Jesus' resurrection) then I feel it's been productive, whether the other person chooses to accept my evidence or not.
>I think too many people, even Christians, get caught up in view #1 and forget view #2.
Actually view #2 is simply a more optomistic, rosy way of looking at view #1. It's the old question of the glass being half-empty or half-full. I don't find #2, if true, to be that much more of a cheery outlook.
Actually, it's a rather simple doctrine, compared to many other religions. With Hindu faith, there is no certain "save", I believe--the gods are their own entities, with personalities akin to destroy their followers. Buddhism is incredibly complicated simplicity. Many other religions require acts.
Well, I could go find a paper that gives all the reasons the references should be believed, then you'd find another that refutes all those reasons, and I'd find one that refutes those refutations, etc. It'd be time consuming and, I think, wouldn't ultimately convince anyone.
I think that the differences between views #1 and #2 are those between John Calvin and Billy Graham.
Scott: I had a similar experience, except this happened a few years back at my work when this woman wouldn't quit harrassing me to pray with her to have Jesus save my disbelieving soul, or something like that. And this was after I told her I am polytheistic...go figure. I have no respect for people who try to force feed me their religions by demanding that I follow what they say. (Reading other people's opinions is a different story, of course.)
M. Jenkins: That was a dumb approach. Most witnessing tends to start in simple acts of kindness or chats, and (if the person being talked to wishes it) can go further. There's no sense in harassing people, as they obviously don't want to hear the message anyway, and that creates a negative portrait of Christians.
Mike: Yeah, I agree. I realise that most Christians don't use that approach, so I figure she was just looking to harrass someone. Obviously, I wasn't in a good mood afterwards, as I couldn't abandon her long enough to go get my manager to put a stop to it (everytime I tried to extricate myself, she'd follow me). And by the time that I HAD gotten away, she was gone when I told a manager. I, however, was fortunate enough to have had a colleague there at the same time (for the beginning anyway), so he verified what I said.
Most other people I've talked to agree that it was unnecessary (including my Christian father), but I've had a few try it again...so now I give them my "evil" look and they back off. :)
I've already rested my case on the Josephus and Tacitus, so I won't be needing to quote any more articles. But if you can show me an article which gives me all the reasons those references should be believed in the face of this evidence, I sure would be interested to read it.
What is the condition of all the people who lived before the time of Jesus? How did they attain salvation?
According to Dante (and Medieval Church teachings) they were condemned to Limbo (the top level of Hell). I believe that the Church has changed its position on this, but I don't know what happens now.
George Carlin used to do a funny bit about Limbo. He said that when the church cancelled Limbo, he hoped they promoted them to Heaven and didn't just cut them loose into space.
GC's "Class Clown" album is highly recommended for his views on growing up Irish Catholic.
OK, here are some sites, see if any of them satisfy you. I don't have time to go through them. I had 398 'results' from my search; these are taken from the first thirty. I tell you, we could do this forever!
http://www.webcom.com/ctt/jesusref.html
http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/08375a.htm
http://home.fireplug.net/~rshand/reflections/messiah/sources.html
http://hiwaay.net/~wgann/sermons/historic.htm
http://www.marshill.org/Apologetics%20Pages/historicity_of_Jesus.htm
Limbo? Is that like Sheol?
According to Dante (who, granted, is not the greatest authority, but the Church would have come down hard on him at that time if they didn't like it), Limbo is the first level of Hell. That's why Virgil couldn't be Dante's guide in the third book of the Divine Comedy - he was a pagan.
Yeah, so we got Beatrice (didn't like her much).
I remember Dante put all the great 'pagan' minds into Limbo in their own little lighted dome; definitely not Heaven, but worlds better than anywhere else in Hell. He couldn't bear that they'd be suffering torments with all the other sinners (though many no doubt deserved to be). It was an interesting idea.
Yes, but Dante was a poet, not a prophet, I believe.
Yeah, but at the time that Dante wrote, the Church was essentially all-powerful. If they didn't like what he wrote, they would have come down hard on him (see GALILEOOMT).
Yes, but (isn't it cool how many times we can work this in a sentence) the Church (I believe it is the Roman Catholic Church?) is a human entity, and so, can be wrong and has been wrong on things.
Also, who is to say Dante wasn't a prophet? Maybe he wrote what he saw?
I think it was called a "Comedy" for a reason.
Cult of Dante - now there's an interesting idea =)
Hey, Todd! What do you have to say about these guys: Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. They also recorded the existence of Jesus. The Talmud mentions Him as well.
Yes, but not the reason you think. It's not funny.
I forget where this quote comes from, but...
"Tragedy shows Man at his best. Comedy shows him at his worst."
Where, specifically, does the Talmud mention Jesus? The Talmud is commentaries on the OT law from the Tanach. I find it a bit difficult to believe that Jesus would be in there.
Seutonius, in Lives of the Caesars, mentions a Chrestus, whose instigation led to constant uprisings by the Jews and caused Emperor Cladius to order their exile in 49 A.D. Chrestus is the correct spelling of a proper greco-roman name, and, as noted before, Christ is not a proper name but a title. Yet, it is very possible that this chrestus mentioned here WAS the historical Jesus, which would seem to obscufate the issue, unless the substituting of "Chrestus" for "Christ" was some scribe's error. In any case, all it tells us about this figure is that he in some way instigated these Jewish revolts.
Pliny the Younger is writing in the year 100, and is merely reporting the existence of Christians in Asia Minor at this time, a fact which no one doubts.
Lucian is writing even later, in 170, so of course the stories of a "man who was crucified in Palestine" that he refers to were already well established.
Anyway, even given that ALL these references are valid, the most detailed of them tell no more than that Jesus was an insurrectionist leader of the Jews who was probably executed. Remember, I'm not disputing the fact that there was a historical Jesus, that such a man actually did live. I disputed that his resurrection had any basis in historical fact. And it has to be noted that the questions "Did Jesus ever live?" and "Who was Jesus?" are two completely different ones. All the secular history of the period tells us almost nothing in answer to the second questions. The Gospels, written several years after the fact, contain details almost totally and in detail borrowed from pagan myths and legends from the story of Jesus' birth to that of his death and resurrection. Furthermore, they contain numerous historical errors and bear the mark of being written by men not familiar with the time and place they are writing about.
I maintain that the resurrection of Christ is an event not corraborated by any extra-Biblical history.
I know
Comedy means happy ending
tragedy means sad ending
Somehow Macbeth doesn't strike me as man's best
Oh, just the resurrection, OK. But really, who would be writing that Christ rose besides His followers? The enemies of Christianity would be doing everything possible to *disprove* that He rose from the dead! =)
"The Gospels, written several years after the fact..."
About twenty years after, right? =)
"...contain details almost totally and in detail borrowed from pagan myths and legends from the story of Jesus' birth to that of his death and resurrection."
Which myths and legends? Where can I find them?
"Furthermore, they contain numerous historical errors and bear the mark of being written by men not familiar with the time and place they are writing about."
This is a new one! Let's have some examples.
Uh, Jennifer, please, where in the Talmud do they mention Jesus, or were you just blowing smoke?
>Which myths and legends? Where can I find them?
Well before the time of Christ, the mythic tradition of the divine savior man-god was already well established in the literature and folklore of the world. To attempt to list more than a few examples would be way too involved and time-consuming, I can refer you to http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm under the section titled “The Characters”. In ancient times, the practice of starting a new religion by borrowing legends from an earlier, established one was common (an example of sorts can be seen in how quickly the Romans created their own mythology out of the annexed Greeks’, simply by changing the names of the central figures). In the case of the Gospel stories, many of these elements adopted for the narrative of Jesus’ life include a virgin birth, a birthday of Dec. 25, a birthplace denoted by stars or astral configurations, the savior having to be hid from a tyrant who sought his life, a career of preaching, miracle working and disciple-gathering, being executed (often in a manner resembling crucifixion), having eclipses and similar phenomena accompany death, descending into the underworld, being resurrected after three days, and then ascending into heaven. The story of Jesus has elements that can be traced all the way back to the ancient Egyptian legends of Horus and Osiris, and perhaps even further. Probably the closest parallel to the Gospels is the ancient legends surrounding Buddha, which were collected and canonized into the Tripitaka around 250 B.C. These contain all the elements pointed out above, as well as striking similarities to the story of the feeding of the multitudes (Buddha was said to have fed a crowd of 500 with a small basket of bread), the story of the fasting and temptation in the wilderness, the sermon on the mount, the use of similar analogies in preaching (such as that of the mustard seed, the house built on sand and rain falling on the just and unjust), the account of a traitor among the disciples whose betrayal eventually leads to the savior’s execution . . . there is more, much more, and not just in the story of Buddha. There are a few good books on this subject, the best I know of being T.W. Doane’s indispensible Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, a 550+ page opus with literally a thousand references, thoroughly detailed yet highly readable.
A few historical errors in the New Testament:
1. Matt. 8:32 mentions swine being present at the site of one of Jesus’ miracles. The keeping of swine was prohibited in Judea and Galilee of the time.
2. In Matt. 23:35, Jesus speaks of the death of Zechariah the son of Barachiah as having occurred in the past tense. Yet Zechariah did not die until 70 A.D., according to Josephus.
3. Matt. 27:38, the account of the two thieves being crucified with Jesus. Crucifixion was not a punishment for thievery under either Jewish or Roman law.
4. Mark 14:3 introduces Simon the leper, who supposedly lived in Bethany. But it was against the law for lepers to live in the city.
5. The story in Luke 2:46. A child of the time would not have been allowed to sit in the presence of rabbis.
6. Luke’s 23:33 account of the crucifixion. If the Jews had executed Jesus, they would have stoned him. The Jews never used crucifixion.
7. John 2:20 says that it took 46 years to build the temple of Jerusalem, when according to Josephus, it took only two years.
8. John 13:38, the famous story of the cocks crowing. The keeping of cocks was not allowed in Jerusalem at that time.
9. Josephus gives the death of Theudas as 45 A.D. Yet Gamiliel is said to refer to it at least a decade before it happens, in Acts 5:36.
10. Luke 3:1-2 says that Lysanias was the tetrarch of Abliene, when Josephus tells us he had been dead about thirty years.
11. Luke 2:1-2 tells that the taxing first took place when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Cyrenius did not take office until ten years after Herod’s death, which means that Jesus could not have been born during the reign of Herod, as Matthew tells us.
12. The Synaptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, all say that Jesus’ trial was held during the feast of the Passover. Yet the Jews did not hold trials during this feast.
13. There are many problems with Luke’s account of the trial. Jesus is questioned by the Jewish court, has no lawyer, lasted only a few hours, and was held the day before the Sabbath. None of this would have been permitted by Jewish law.
14. If Jesus was indeed tried before the Sanhedrin, he would not have had a subsequent trial by a political figure like Pilate.
Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg . . .
Didn't read the post throughly, but here's one that I can answer immediately:
12. The Synaptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, all say that Jesus’ trial was held during the feast of the Passover. Yet the Jews did not hold trials during this feast.
And yet, they did. Now call me crazy, but didn't the Romans try Jesus and convict him? I seem to recall this whole Pontius Pilate thing, and gosh, you know, I always thought he was Roman. That's why the Romans tried him. The Jews would have, but it was against their laws, so they asked the Romans to do it. Then Pilate couldn't find anything wrong, but the people still said they should release the murderer (or whatever Barabbus was) and hang Jesus.
Didn't read the post throughly, but here's one that I can answer immediately:
12. The Synaptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, all say that Jesus’ trial was held during the feast of the Passover. Yet the Jews did not hold trials during this feast.
And yet, they did. Now call me crazy, but didn't the Romans try Jesus and convict him? I seem to recall this whole Pontius Pilate thing, and gosh, you know, I always thought he was Roman. That's why the Romans tried him. The Jews would have, but it was against their laws, so they asked the Romans to do it. Then Pilate couldn't find anything wrong, but the people still said they should release the murderer (or whatever Barabbus was) and crucify Jesus.
I don't know where the Talmud mentions Jesus; it was simply listed with those other sources. I could spend some time tracking down the reference, but I don't have enough moments to spare anymore. I'm sure, if you look, you'll find it.
Actually, I believe that Jesus probably lived, and was a radical teacher at the time. I just don't believe that he was the Messiah.
I still find it hard to believe that the Talmud would mention him... he was outside the power structure, and the Talmud is commentaries on the Torah and exposition of law as regards the Mitzvot expressed in the Torah.
1 - the Bible just mentions a herd of pigs, not that anyone owned or kept them. Were any and all pigs forbidden within Israel's borders?
4 - Perhaps Simon was no longer a leper (hint, hint =).
5 - A child also wouldn't be preaching to the rabbis =)
8 - Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus' arrest and trial take place during passover week, when a whole bunch of Jews and non-Jews were presumably in Jerusalem? Is it so unlikely that someone was bringing through a rooster?
2,7,9,10,11 - well, I'll take the Bible over Josephus and all his fellows any day. Of course, I'm biased =)
3,6,12,13,14 - like Matt said, Jesus' trial was a sneaky Jewish/Roman coventure. What rules would have applied (and how many were circumvented) is hard to know.
I know this is just the 'tip of the iceberg,' but you can bet I'll find an explanation for just about every point you can bring up.
Basically, no matter how many years after the fact you think the Gospels were written, I doubt we, almost 2,000 years later, can know more about the time and place where these events occurred than those who lived near that place and time.
I'll get to the myths and legends stuff later, when I've been through that site.
O.K. Are we all under the impression that there was a fella named Jesus, son of Joseph? If so, let's get a basic ground going.
I am the King of All Media!!!
http://alluremedia.net/siegel/skeptics/hisrefjes.html
Historical References to Jesus, His Miracles and His Resurrection, Outside the New Testament
"Many good books have been written on the accuracy of the Bible, and for hat reason, I will move on now and spend some time talking about the witness of Jesus outside of the New Testament, because that witness also is abundant.
We'll begin with the Jewish witness. Although the original church was made up primarily of Jews, most of the nation of Israel rejected Jesus as the
promised Messiah, and the Jewish priests and teachers were particularly hostile to Him. In the Talmud (an ancient rabbinic storehouse of law, wisdom and commentary) Jesus is described as both a sorcerer and an apostate.
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to Apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought
forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover (Sanhedrin 43A, Babylonian Talmud from Tannaaitic period 70-200 Ad. Translation from Jacob Shachter, Sanhedrin, Translated into English With Notes, Glossary And Indices, Chapters 1-6 by Jacob Schachter, Chapters 7-11 by H. Freedman, London, 1948: Soncino, p.281-2). 1
Yeshu, of course, is the Hebrew word for Jesus. "Hanging" was another way of describing a crucifixion.2 Apostates were people who broke from the faith and/or preached heresy. Jesus' divine claims certainly placed Him into this category. The idea of a mere man claiming to be the God of Israel was as outrageous and dangerous as false teaching could possibly be. (Unless, of course, Jesus was telling the truth). But the Sanhedrin (a Jewish puppet court, allowed by the Romans to have limited jurisdiction over internal affairs) did not believe His claim and had no recourse but to denounce Him as a traitor and blasphemer.
Now here's the big question: Why did the Talmud go on to conclude that Jesus was also a sorcerer? Because, in those days, if you didn't like a
religious personality but could not deny the fact that He was doing miracles, the only recourse was to call Him a sorcerer, or tool of the devil. Although most Jews today will insist that they do not believe in Satan, Jews in Jesus' day did. He was mentioned in the Holy Scriptures (Job 1, 2), and He was viewed as a rebellious spirit who sought to deceive people by performing miracles, as exemplified by the magicians of Pharaoh's court who imitated the miracles of Moses (Exodus 7, Kiddushin 49:b, Babylonian Talmud).
What we have then, is a fantastic anti-Christian source with bias pre-disposed against Jesus, a source nevertheless affirming that a teacher
named Jesus came to Palestine with incredible claims and an ability to perform miracles."
Did I mention that I was the King of All Media? Oh, and Dr. Laura is a hypocrite!!!
Ladies and gentleman, Howard Stern! Y'see, the man DOES have other interests not expressed on his radio show.
Sadly, Chuck Darwin on the Creation board seems to be living up to the stereotype expected due to his name. Ah, well.
I never thought I'd be thanking Howard Stern. I'll let his slander about Dr. Laura pass 'cause otherwise he's being a good boy =)
Jen, you said that the people who lived in the place and time where much of the NT occurs should know more about the times and places they lived in than anyone else. Yet then you say that you'll take the Bible any day over Josephus (and, presumably, the historians that collaborate him), who lived closer to the times and places than the gospel authors. That just seems like a priori reasoning (I guess you did admit, though, that you were biased:))
Just to be clear, Howard Stern still does not believe Jesus ever existed. If he did, then I believe all the bad things the Talmud says about him. Yes, I sometimes refer to myself in the third person like Bob Dole. Here are the opening paragraphs from Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms:
"In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven. Who was this teacher and wonder-worker? His name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died about 98 A.D., and his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus's Life of Apollonious. Readers who too hastily assumed that the preceding described Apollonious's slightly earlier contemporary, Jesus of Nazareth, may be forgiven their error if they will reflect how readily the human imagination embroiders the careers of notable figures of the past with common mythical and fictional embellishments."
Oh, Jennifer Pope, please check out Bulletin Brash Reflections: Quantum Leap: Spinoffs and Movies -- Truth or False?: Real Life Spin-Off = Dr. Laura Talk Radio Show for the truth about Dr. Hypocrite. Recently, she tried to destroy a small business for personal reasons and fired a single mom.
I AM THE KING OF ALL MEDIA (including the InterNet)!!!!
Mr. Stern - been there, seen that, looked at the 'evidence,' wasn't convinced.
Todd - I believe the people who wrote the Bible lived in the times and saw the things they wrote about. They are more reliable, in my mind, than Romanized and distant Josephus. Oh, I also believe the Bible is the Word of God =)