Existence of the "historical Jesus" increasingly questioned by scholars

[Victorian Gray]

No, true followers of Christ do not do such things.

More like people used religion as an excuse to kill, rob and torture.

Any excuse is a good excuse, right?

So, for example, the Crusades were bad bad people doing bad things and they justified it using Christianity which they didn't really believe in? Interesting. Are there *any* "true followers of Christ"? Have there ever been any?

 

[Retro Rob]

Check out this description of various tidal wetlands: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5120.html

You'll notice some have a maximum of one foot of water at low tide while another type (2020 LZ) can have an average of 6 feet at low tide. Given the range of different depths for tidal wetlands, it is quite plausible that an army, chasing fleeing Israelites, would start across wetlands. Travel would be difficult and as the water rises around them, they would turn back to flee. Unfortunately, at that point, it might be too late. Horses would fall, trapping their riders, chariots would break, and even those that could swim might find their legs sinking into mud, trapping them in growing waters and drowning them all.



The literal story has the Egyptians walk between two walls of water through a sea (an act of magic), acknowledge that the Lord fights for the Israelites when their chariot wheels get caught in mud (a mundane act), and then try to flee.

Which is more sensible: 1) an army chases Israelites too far into a tidal marshland and are caught by the incoming tide before they can escape or 2) an army fails to recognize the power of the Lord is behind the parting of a sea, chases Israelites into the channel, and then realizes that their chariot wheels being caught in the mud is caused not by the natural properties of mud, but by the power of the Lord they failed to recognize was causing the sea to part, causing them to finally try to turn and flee.

I suspect you missed my earlier post -- natural explanations are readily abandoned when they fail to explain something (ex: why only first born sons died) and the consensus magically becomes "it didn't happen at all".

That's evidence of the prejudice in contemporary scholarship.

 

[IronWing]

I suspect you missed my earlier post -- natural explanations are readily abandoned when they fail to explain something (ex: why only first born sons died) and the consensus magically becomes "it didn't happen at all".

That's evidence of the prejudice in contemporary scholarship.

When there is no evidence for an event having occurred and no plausible explanation for how such an event might happen it is reasonable to be prejudiced in favor of the idea that the event didn't happen.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Rob and Texas appear to have been raised by wolves. How in the world can you two be so stupid?

Wolves are actually quite intelligent so it was probably something else.

 

[HumblePie]

When there is no evidence for an event having occurred and no plausible explanation for how such an event might happen it is reasonable to be prejudiced in favor of the idea that the event didn't happen.

Bingo.

It's one thing to go through the mental exercise to try to deduce a logical reasoning behind a claimed mythical occurrence, but that doesn't give evidence that the event actually happened at all. Just giving some plausible explanation for how it might have occurred if it really did. When there is no evidence to support such an event occurring, and there isn't any plausible explanation for how something could be even interpreted as occurring, the chances are that it didn't occur.

 

[Retro Rob]

When there is no evidence for an event having occurred and no plausible explanation for how such an event might happen it is reasonable to be prejudiced in favor of the idea that the event didn't happen.

Well, as long as you're admitting it.

And mind you, something not conforming to naturalism is not implausible.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Honestly you should stop posting. You're wasting everyone's time with your ignorance.

And yet we all happily pile in on every one of his threads (myself included). Most of the time he's actually very good at being stupid and it works.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Wrong TH was raised by Chickens

:biggrin:

 

[soulcougher73]

When there is no evidence for an event having occurred and no plausible explanation for how such an event might happen it is reasonable to be prejudiced in favor of the idea that the event didn't happen.

But that takes rational and logical thought which most believers dont have enough of.

 

[IronWing]

Well, as long as you're admitting it.

And mind you, something not conforming to naturalism is not implausible.

I know you think you are entitled to your own special world of personal revelation and personal "facts" but don't expect anyone else to consider the "knowledge" therein obtained to be worthy of consideration in any reasonable discussion.

 

[fskimospy]

I suspect you missed my earlier post -- natural explanations are readily abandoned when they fail to explain something (ex: why only first born sons died) and the consensus magically becomes "it didn't happen at all".

That's evidence of the prejudice in contemporary scholarship.

Actually, the fact that they are considering it at all is evidence of pro-biblical prejudice. There is literally zero evidence of the first born children dying in any way, natural or otherwise. There is no need to explain something that most likely never happened at all.

I feel like you should be really glad the story of exodus gets as much deference as it does.

 

[Retro Rob]

I know you think you are entitled to your own special world of personal revelation and personal "facts" but don't expect anyone else to consider the "knowledge" therein obtained to be worthy of consideration in any reasonable discussion.

I'm not expecting anything really, just talking. And if my "knowledge" isn't worthy of reasonable discussion, then you could have decided to not post in here.

 

[Retro Rob]

Actually, the fact that they are considering it at all is evidence of pro-biblical prejudice. There is literally zero evidence of the first born children dying in any way, natural or otherwise. There is no need to explain something that most likely never happened at all.

I feel like you should be really glad the story of exodus gets as much deference as it does.

Perfectly fine with me. You should know, I'm am actually indifferent to the attention the Bible gets at all, as my faith really isn't built on what scholars say since, often, they contradict one another.

Heck, they cant even agree on something as simple as the existence of Jesus...how can they ever agree on an account in which evidence was deliberately tampered with?

 

[IronWing]

I'm not expecting anything really, just talking. And if my "knowledge" isn't worthy of reasonable discussion, then you could have decided to not post in here.

You intruded upon a discussion among reasonable people to inject your nonsense. Perhaps you should sit on the bench and simply listen.

 

[stormkroe]

I think this thread is a long lost cause, but I'll throw this out there in case anyone actually cares.

Another argument that the Exodus never occurred is that there are no signs that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years. However, we must remember that during the Exodus the Israelites were forced to live nomadic lives. No longer did they reside in villages with sturdy houses and artifacts that could have survived as evidence. Instead, in the wilderness environment, every item had to be used to its fullest capacity and then, if possible, recycled. Also, the portable tent encampments during those 40 years would have left few or no traces that could be found 3, 400 years later, especially in the shifting desert sands.

Interestingly, recent satellite infrared technology has revealed ancient caravan routes in the Sinai. George Stephen, a satellite-image analyst, discovered evidence in the satellite photographs of ancient tracks made by “a massive number of people” going “from the Nile Delta straight south along the east bank of the Gulf of Suez and around the tip of the Sinai Peninsula.” He also saw huge campsites along the route, one that fits the description given in the book of Exodus (Price 1997:137).

Here's another (longer)

*Originally designed to detect underground missile silos (a silo’s temperature is slightly warmer than the surrounding earth), it was placed into position to take pictures of the buried tanks. The tanks would heat up during the hot daylight hours and continue to hold heat long after the rest of the desert cooled during the night. The buried tanks showed up on the satellite photo like neon signs. The exact location of each tank was then plotted on a target map and given to American and British pilots who systematically eliminated them.

*****However, Big Bird photographed more than buried tanks. To everyone’s amazement, a thin red line (heated areas show up as red on infrared photos) coming from the ancient site of Ramesses in the Land of Goshen (Egypt), ran eastward, skirting the east side of the Red Sea. “So God led the people around the desert road toward the Red Sea” (Exodus 13:18).

The line went first to Succoth, lying just northeast of Ramesses. It was here the children of Israel, as they left Egypt, first stopped and collected the bones of Joseph (Exodus 13:19, 20). The line then extended onward to Etham, and then over the high plateau of the Sinai Peninsula, finally dropping down onto what is today called The Gulf of Aquaba, the easternmost finger of the Red Sea.

*****One need only look at map of this area to realize that the children of Israel were now trapped. In front of them was the Red Sea Coming from behind them to the northwest was Pharaoh’s army. They had been led by God Himself into what appeared to be a trap.

*****But, the thin red line emerged from the east side of the Red Sea and continued onward, eventually ending up in present day Saudi Arabia at the foot of a 3,465 foot mountain known as “Jabal al Lawz” (Mountain of God)—the real Mount Sinai!

*****The satellite photo team stared incredulously at the photo! A red line, as if drawn by God’s own finger, traced the exact route of the exodus. When the Gulf war finally ended, archaeologists went back into the region to discover how it was possible for a 3,500-year-old trail to exist well enough to show up on satellite photos.

*****They found that a million plus people, with all their livestock, pulverized the desert sand into a fine, flour-like powder. During the desert nights, the humidity rises to levels of near 100%, thus wetting the powdery sand, making a concrete-like substance.

I haven't had time to substantiate those stories, bit the point I'm trying to make here is this:
None of us are experts, we can only deposit knowledge gained from others. To speak in absolutes, "we KNOW the gospels are misattributed", "we KNOW the exodus didn't happen", is the height of vanity. At one point we KNEW the Bible was wrong about ashurbanapul and ninevuh.
Thankfully this is history. In the same way we allow the fossil record a chance to shore up macro speciation, why not allow archeology to (keep) shoring up histories found in the Bible?
Or not. Just remember to be mindful if speaking in absolutes.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Perfectly fine with me. You should know, I'm am actually indifferent to the attention the Bible gets at all, as my faith really isn't built on what scholars say since, often, they contradict one another.

Heck, they cant even agree on something as simple as the existence of Jesus...how can they ever agree on an account in which evidence was deliberately tampered with?

If that's the case then maybe you should stop posting your gibberish in the religion threads. Go take a time out.

 

[schmuckley]

Haters gonna hate.

Christ taught love, forgiveness and charity. If you destroy the man, you destroy his teachings.

Those who would do away with the teaching of Christ, what would those teachings be replaced with?

Lust? Hate? Greed?

The true evil here are the people who wish to destroy the teachings of Christ.

Well said, sir.
I like how the Atheists made a move to get away from modern time being tracked in reference to Christ's life.
actually I don't like it.
But you know..for 2000+ years it was b.c. and a.d.
What is it now?
"common era"?
It's all about denial.

 

[Exophase]

While looking for more Exodus stuff I found an interesting hypothesis here: http://www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction

 

[stormkroe]

While looking for more Exodus stuff I found an interesting hypothesis here: http://www.reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction

Good find exo
+1

 

[Darwin333]

The funny thing about this statement is that despite all the "unknowns", they're going to draw their own conclusions anyway as if facts are determined by popular opinion.

Just to drop this little nugget in here, most, if not all if the following historical facts about the Bible were "unknown" and declared "myths" by contemporary scholars before their findings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources


How many times do secular scholars have to make fools of themselves? We have enough confirmed evidence in the Bible to where we can pretty much rely on that it's telling the truth.

I have other information, but it seems that people who had political power, or who had strong political influence were extensively written about, like Cyrus, who is mentioned in the Bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great#Politics_and_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_II


My guess is since Jesus and his Apostles were not at all politically involved, but sectarian peasants in the Roman world, its no wonder they were absent from a lot of documents...no one really cared for the early Christian sect.

However, scholars actually harm the Biblical narrative because they're trying to tie Jesus with someone else, instead of admitting that they simply "don't know", which they do not know as of now.

A dude turning water into wine would be very noteworthy in todays modern world much less in the first century. A guy rising from the dead and then continuing his groovyness is a pretty rare occurance too and one would think someone would have mentioned it.

You have some guy going around and performing miracles, has a fairly decent number of groupies, is executed in a spectacular fashion, rises from the dead and then ascends into heaven body and all, that isn't noteworthy for the time period?

I dunno, if I saw that stuff today, with all of our modern advances, I think I'd write a few things about it but that's just me.

 

[Thebobo]

Anyone convinced yet?

 

[JEDIYoda]

If that's the case then maybe you should stop posting your gibberish in the religion threads. Go take a time out.

your point? Do you ever have one?

 

[Retro Rob]

A dude turning water into wine would be very noteworthy in todays modern world much less in the first century. A guy rising from the dead and then continuing his groovyness is a pretty rare occurance too and one would think someone would have mentioned it.

You have some guy going around and performing miracles, has a fairly decent number of groupies, is executed in a spectacular fashion, rises from the dead and then ascends into heaven body and all, that isn't noteworthy for the time period?

I dunno, if I saw that stuff today, with all of our modern advances, I think I'd write a few things about it but that's just me.

I don't disagree with you here necessarily, but Roman Emperors were gods themselves, so performing miracles would have been "meh" anyway.

Also, a group torn by dogs and persecuted, likely, people would have feared to side with Jesus, possibly being threatened themselves.

Just saying its hard to get onboard with a new religion under the rule of an intolerant and violent one.

 

[Texashiker]

Well said, sir.

Thank you.

You don't have to be a liar to be wrong. Josephus was born long after the time of Jesus

How is 4 years a long time?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-believers are proud to proclaim the United States was not founded on Christian beliefs.

What did the founding fathers continue? Slavery for one thing.

Take your pick:

Atheist who do not value human life, and have no compassion or charity.

Or the teachings of Christ with love, compassion and charity.

 

[IronWing]

How is 4 years a long time?

He was supposedly born four years after Jesus' headed for the clouds. He would have had to grow up and all that. With no written records to chronicle the life of Jesus that a generation of separation from the events. "Israel in four BC had no mass communication."