What do you think about the Jesus myth hypothesis?

We know it was written during Socrates' lifetime, because we have records of when these plays were performed, and The Clouds is well within Socrates' lifetime (naturally, since it's a satire of contemporary figures). mysterylobster

From what I've been able to gather, it was a mockery of contemporary philosophies (the sophists). But I'm asking for evidence of these records. Where can I find translations of these records proving that the clouds were written during the lifetime of Socrates?

I don't think anyone still believes the Books of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses. mysterylobster

Richard Bauckham and Daniel Wallace would like a word with you then.

I'm not saying any of this proves that Jesus didn't exist, since I obviously believe He did. I'm only correcting those who think there's as much evidence for Jesus' existance as for Socrates'.

mysterylobster

Why does being canonized make a document untrustworthy?danwallacefan

All history is bias, especially ancient history. as Blomberg rightly pointed out, all ancient history had an agenda. THe notion of writing history purely for the sake of writing history had not really been invented. all good historians wrote history as a story. Furthermore, please define "Religious text" for the audience.danwallacefan

once again, please define "religious text" for the audience. Furthermore, once again, ALL ancient history was bias.danwallacefan

Let's see we have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, Tacitus, Josephus, Mara Bar Serapion, and the many church fathers.danwallacefan

actually our oldest and most reliable accounts and written sources on Augustus Caesar and Tiberius Caesar post-date their deaths. They were written by Suetonius and Tacitus, several decades after their death. Furthermore, the textual evidence backing up the New Testament is outstanding. There are several lines of independent textual transmission. furthermore, our oldest manuscripts date to no more than 50 years after the autographa were written. Compare that to Tacitus' Annals, whose oldest manuscript is nearly 1,000 years removed from the autographa.danwallacefan

because Jesus' resurrection serves really as a model for our own future resurrection from the dead. Furthermore, Jesus' resurrection ushered in the coming of the kingdom of God. danwallacefan

Welcome back, mig_killer2 / notconspiracy / fanofazrienochCptJSparrow

Maybe he existed, who knows. I don't care.Immortalica

Mere bias simply does not play a role in history. We have to examine whether the authors were in a good position to write history. Based on the reliability of oral tradition in the ancient world, and based on their clear connection to eyewitness testimony, it seems blatantly clear and obvious that the Gospel authors and Paul were in an extremely good position to write history.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
I don't understand what you just rambled off their but "textual evidence backing up the New Testament" just does not compute. It would be great to actually see some sources from accredited institutions on this stuff. foxhound_fox

define "accredited institution". I can give you scholarly sources of course, namely Craig Blomberg and Dr. Wallace.

None of that can be proven objectively through science. foxhound_fox

I love this scientism so prevalent among atheists. NEWSFLASH: Science isn't the end-all-be-all of truth disciplines.

If you have some sort of evidence that can support it, there are a lot of theologians that would love to hear about it so they can once and for all time prove Christianity right.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"]

We know it was written during Socrates' lifetime, because we have records of when these plays were performed, and The Clouds is well within Socrates' lifetime (naturally, since it's a satire of contemporary figures). danwallacefan

From what I've been able to gather, it was a mockery of contemporary philosophies (the sophists). But I'm asking for evidence of these records. Where can I find translations of these records proving that the clouds were written during the lifetime of Socrates?

Here's a reference to the note from The Clouds: http://books.google.com/books?id=OAwqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&dq=%22fifth+hypothesis%22+clouds&lr=#PPA17,M1

Notice the author says, "this statement is amply confirmed by other testimony."

I hope that's enough, since I had to dig through some scholarly works to find that, since it's usually just accepted as fact. I'm actually very interested in the dating methods of ancient works. Not all of them are so cut and dry as the comedies.

Mere bias simply does not play a role in history. We have to examine whether the authors were in a good position to write history. Based on the reliability of oral tradition in the ancient world, and based on their clear connection to eyewitness testimony, it seems blatantly clear and obvious that the Gospel authors and Paul were in an extremely good position to write history.danwallacefan

define "accredited institution". I can give you scholarly sources of course, namely Craig Blomberg and Dr. Wallace.danwallacefan

I love this scientism so prevalent among atheists. NEWSFLASH: Science isn't the end-all-be-all of truth disciplines.danwallacefan

again, there is a wide amount of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. danwallacefan

I think it's an hypothesis created by people who just don't want to believe. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] quite a few philosophers of science would disagree that theology (religion) cannot explain science. danwallacefan

Care to explain?

It's an interesting standpoint on the subject of science and religion, but I don't see how religion can claim to be the foundation of ethics, the metaphysical world, etc. The universe and the "gears" that run it were not any different from today than they were millions of years before--they worked just as fluently and static as they do today. The introduction of religion didn't suddenly make things "click into place;" it only made blind assumptions about the world around us and why things work the way they do (but not how). This being said, I do not see how religion can explain science when science (or at least the physical world at which we study) has been present for billions of years before religion was even invented. If I'm forgetting any specific details, by all means, fill me in.

Also, how can religion, a man-made concept of beliefs in the supernatural, be able to define and contrast the complexity of the natural world around us when the whole premise (religion) is based off of supernatural beliefs?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think it's an hypothesis created by people who just don't want to believe. _______1_______

foxhound_fox, are you familiar with Josephus' Antiquities?MAILER_DAEMON

[QUOTE="_______1_______"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think it's an hypothesis created by people who just don't want to believe. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]I love this scientism so prevalent among atheists. NEWSFLASH: Science isn't the end-all-be-all of truth disciplines.foxhound_fox

no actually the historical community would be in agreement with me here. We assess whether the bias distorted the reports and whether the authors were actually in a position to write history. We have yet to see evidence that their biases somehow distorted their portraits of Jesus. [QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Craig Blomberg: A conservative evangelical professor of the New Testament at the Denver Seminary in Colorado. I would have to read his books to determine his credibility... and considering his qualifications, he seems a little biased.foxhound_fox

"Scientism." :lol: That's a new one. Science IS the be-all-and-end-all of objective rationalism. It analyses evidence to reach a conclusion based on that evidence, it does not posit a claim until there is sufficient objectively demonstrable and observable evidence to support it. Science is not an "ism."foxhound_fox

What is it. If there was, the resurrection of Jesus would be considered a fact and not a myth. foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="_______1_______"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think it's an hypothesis created by people who just don't want to believe. LJS9502_basic

Completely pointless as well. Even if you did (somehow) completely destroy a belief system, many people will still believe in the religion and dismiss your arguements as blasphemy.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="_______1_______"] Hi again. :) Would non-belief really require such dedication?_______1_______

[QUOTE="_______1_______"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Apparently so. Otherwise one would merely...just..not...believe. But not take the time to try to destroy a belief with unproven rhetoric. :)

LJS9502_basic

You said originally is was just for people who don't want to believe. A justification of sorts. You then added later that it's designed to be a weapon used in the destruction of a belief system. I'm asking why you didn't say that from the beginning. I'm thinking you didn't originally feel that way, and only came up with that excuse after I pointed out what was wrong with your original statement. But how many times can you create new excuses to dodge your flaws? That well is going to run dry eventually. ;)

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]foxhound_fox, are you familiar with Josephus' Antiquities?foxhound_fox

Point being is that most of what we accept to be historical records of the time come from this man and his accounts that were originally written in Greek. He was not a Christian, he was a Jew who became a Roman citizen (hence the Latin name) and became governor of the Galilee region due to the fact that he had a patron in the Flavian family.

The relevance here is that there are reference to Jesus in non-Biblical sources, and this thread is about whether or not Jesus existed, not whether or not he was the Son of God or even a divine being.