Did Jesus die on the Cross?

[Ren]

I am typing this as a former Christian and reformed Wiccan Pagan.

No. Jesus did not die on the cross.

The historical Jesus was a man by the name of Yeishu ben Pantera who
having taught Egyptian magick to Jews was imprisoned 40 days, stoned to
death and hung from a tree on the Jew's Passover Eve.

The Jews hated this Essene Christian (Notzri) so much that his name
came to be known as "he who must not be named" and "betrayer".

Let anybody with historical evidence from the time of Jesus' life
support or challenge my statements or be forever quiet. Most Christian
sources are way after the death of the historical Jesus.

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Ren
I am typing this as a former Christian and reformed Wiccan Pagan.

B - No such thing as a Reformed Wiccan Pagan in my opinion. Anyone who
"reforms" was not a Wiccan in the first place.



B ...and yes..this is only my opinion.

Blessings
Bren

[Denis Giron]

Post by Ren
I am typing this as a former Christian and reformed Wiccan Pagan.
No. Jesus did not die on the cross.

Are you making an historical argument, or are you presenting this as a
position of faith? It is worth noting that the earliest biographies of
Jesus (yes, texts which Christians consider part of their sacred canon)
have him dying on the cross.

Post by Ren
The historical Jesus was a man by the name of Yeishu ben Pantera who
having taught Egyptian magick to Jews was imprisoned 40 days, stoned to
death and hung from a tree on the Jew's Passover Eve.
The Jews hated this Essene Christian (Notzri) so much that his name
came to be known as "he who must not be named" and "betrayer".
Let anybody with historical evidence from the time of Jesus' life
support or challenge my statements or be forever quiet. Most Christian
sources are way after the death of the historical Jesus.

Well, what are the sources for your claims? It seems some of these
claims can be gleaned from Talmud Bavli, which is comprised of
traditions roughly contemporary with the texts in the NT, but reached
its final redaction (and was put into written form) some time after the
canonization of the NT. If I'm not mistaken, some of the claims made
above are more explicitly stated in the Tol'dot Yeshu, which is a
medieval work. In other words, while I am not entirely certain what
your sources are for these claims, it seems the odds are heavily in
favor of those sources also coming significantly after the death of
Jesus, and even after the writing of the synoptic gospels.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Ren
I am typing this as a former Christian and reformed Wiccan Pagan.
No. Jesus did not die on the cross.

Yes, He did.

Post by Ren
The historical Jesus was a man by the name of Yeishu ben Pantera who
having taught Egyptian magick to Jews was imprisoned 40 days, stoned to
death and hung from a tree on the Jew's Passover Eve.

Not only is this nonsense, it is a confused mix of two different myths about
Jesus from early times. One myth was that He had a human father, whose _first_
name was 'Pantera'. The other myth was that a phantasm 'died' on the cross in
His place.

Post by Ren
The Jews hated this Essene Christian (Notzri) so much that his name
came to be known as "he who must not be named" and "betrayer".

More mythology. The Notzri were not Essene.

Post by Ren
Let anybody with historical evidence from the time of Jesus' life
support or challenge my statements or be forever quiet.

No, the burden of proof is on you. Come up with some historical evidence for
YOUR claims. There is none.

Post by Ren
Most Christian
sources are way after the death of the historical Jesus.

More mythology. The earliest of Paul's epistles were written by around 50AD,
which is only 20 years after the fact.

[Chellie]

Post by Ren
I am typing this as a former Christian and reformed Wiccan Pagan.
No. Jesus did not die on the cross.
The historical Jesus was a man by the name of Yeishu ben Pantera who
having taught Egyptian magick to Jews was imprisoned 40 days, stoned to
death and hung from a tree on the Jew's Passover Eve.
The Jews hated this Essene Christian (Notzri) so much that his name
came to be known as "he who must not be named" and "betrayer".
Let anybody with historical evidence from the time of Jesus' life
support or challenge my statements or be forever quiet. Most Christian
sources are way after the death of the historical Jesus.

Are you serious?! Man how the devil has made fools out of people. I
don't need "historical" evidence or any other man-made theology. I
believe what the Bible says and the Bible says Jesus died on the cross.
(Mark 15:37-39, Luke 23:46, John 19:30) Then again you said you were a
former Christain and now a wicca (Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 18:10)

[Peritas]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ren
Most Christian
sources are way after the death of the historical Jesus.

More mythology. The earliest of Paul's epistles were written by around 50AD,
which is only 20 years after the fact.

You say "only" 20 years after the fact. To me 20 years is a long time
to wait before writing something down in an accurate manner. How many
details do you remember from 20 years ago? Certainly, some people can
recall things better than others, and certainly major events will
remain relatively fresh in one's mind. But 20 years is plenty of time
to allow details to fade, exaggerations to grow, or fabrications to
take root.

Now, with that said, let me clarify by saying I'm not trying to
formulate an argument against Jesus dying on the cross. Rather, I'm
asking how do scholars deal with not having any Biblical references to
work with that were written down closer (within a year or so) to the
events in question? If, say, a journalist was going to write an
article on Christ dying on the cross, what three sources would he/she
use to corroborate the story?

Regards

[Gordon]

Post by Ren
I am typing this as a former Christian and reformed Wiccan Pagan.
No. Jesus did not die on the cross.
The historical Jesus was a man by the name of Yeishu ben Pantera who
having taught Egyptian magick to Jews was imprisoned 40 days, stoned to
death and hung from a tree on the Jew's Passover Eve.
The Jews hated this Essene Christian (Notzri) so much that his name
came to be known as "he who must not be named" and "betrayer".
Let anybody with historical evidence from the time of Jesus' life
support or challenge my statements or be forever quiet. Most Christian
sources are way after the death of the historical Jesus.

Here is a link to a web site that provides information concerning
the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus.

http://www.probe.org/theology-and-philosophy/theology---christ/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources.html

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Chellie
Are you serious?! Man how the devil has made fools out of people. I
don't need "historical" evidence or any other man-made theology. I
believe what the Bible says and the Bible says Jesus died on the cross.
(Mark 15:37-39, Luke 23:46, John 19:30) Then again you said you were a
former Christain and now a wicca (Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 18:10)

B - So you call people down because they think differently from you?
The Bible is man made m'dear.

"treat others as you would have them treat you."

by calling others names..you okay others to call you names.

sad.

I.M.O
Blessings
Bren

[r***@yahoo.com]

Post by Ren
No. Jesus did not die on the cross.
The historical Jesus was a man by the name of Yeishu ben Pantera who
having taught Egyptian magick to Jews was imprisoned 40 days, stoned to
death and hung from a tree on the Jew's Passover Eve.
The Jews hated this Essene Christian (Notzri) so much that his name
came to be known as "he who must not be named" and "betrayer".
Let anybody with historical evidence from the time of Jesus' life
support or challenge my statements or be forever quiet. Most Christian
sources are way after the death of the historical Jesus.

I don't know what your sources are for your information, but it might
be interesting to see how your sources stack up. You state that
Christian sources are too late to be of value. The Christian sources
are known and have been subject to scrutiny for years. They have been
debated and examined over centuries.

Often in such claims, rigorous standards of validity are required of
the Christian sources, while almost no standards are applied to the
alternate sources. We can have some claiming that the Christian sources
are invalid for being too late, while they have never bothered to even
look at the dating of their own sources.
So what are the sources that told you the historical Jesus was a man by
the name of Yeishu ben Pantera, he taught Egyptian magick to Jews,
etc.?

Looking forward to seeing the answer [really, I am ; ) ]

dave

[B.G. Kent]

Post by Ren
No. Jesus did not die on the cross.
The historical Jesus was a man by the name of Yeishu ben Pantera who
having taught Egyptian magick to Jews was imprisoned 40 days, stoned to
death and hung from a tree on the Jew's Passover Eve.

B - and we are supposed to believe this...why?

Bren

[Bob]

Post by Peritas
You say "only" 20 years after the fact. To me 20 years is a long time
to wait before writing something down in an accurate manner. How many
details do you remember from 20 years ago? Certainly, some people can
recall things better than others, and certainly major events will
remain relatively fresh in one's mind. But 20 years is plenty of time
to allow details to fade, exaggerations to grow, or fabrications to
take root.

I hear this argument often. But how do you know when they started
writing it? How do you know they did not have notes & letters to work
from? How do you know they did not use collective thoughts, like a
group of disciples sitting around a camp fire saying "Remember when
he...."? I've been working on a book for 10 years now and it's still
not finished. But that doesn't mean what is written so far is from 10
year old memory.

Bob

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Peritas

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Ren
Most Christian
sources are way after the death of the historical Jesus.

More mythology. The earliest of Paul's epistles were written by around 50AD,
which is only 20 years after the fact.

You say "only" 20 years after the fact. To me 20 years is a long
time to wait before writing something down in an accurate manner.

Two problems here: 1) do you know when Q was written (if it was
written)? 2) perhaps to you 20 years is a long time, but to them it
was not. And the memories were the kind of events that are seared into
one's memory.

Post by Peritas
How many details do you remember from 20 years ago?

For some events, quite a few. And those events in my life were nowhere
_near_ as memorable as those of Jesus's life.

Post by Peritas
Certainly, some people can recall things better than others, and
certainly major events will remain relatively fresh in one's mind.
But 20 years is plenty of time to allow details to fade,
exaggerations to grow, or fabrications to take root.

It is also plenty of time to compare memories with others who also
followed Jesus those crucial years.

Post by Peritas
Now, with that said, let me clarify by saying I'm not trying to
formulate an argument against Jesus dying on the cross. Rather, I'm
asking how do scholars deal with not having any Biblical references
to work with that were written down closer (within a year or so) to
the events in question? If, say, a journalist was going to write an
article on Christ dying on the cross, what three sources would he/she
use to corroborate the story?

But this is a common error: assuming they _were_ trying to think and
write like modern journalists or historians. They were not. They must
be understood on their own terms, NOT by anachronistially imposing
modern ideas on them. THAT is how scholars deal with " not having any
[closer] Biblical references".

[Peritas]

Post by Bob

Post by Peritas
You say "only" 20 years after the fact. To me 20 years is a long time
to wait before writing something down in an accurate manner.

I hear this argument often. But how do you know when they started
writing it? How do you know they did not have notes & letters to work
from? How do you know they did not use collective thoughts, like a
group of disciples sitting around a camp fire saying "Remember when
he...."? I've been working on a book for 10 years now and it's still
not finished. But that doesn't mean what is written so far is from 10
year old memory.

Well, you have a point with saying "...how do you know when they
*started* writing it?" Scholars have somehow determined when certain
texts likely appeared in circulation, but they don't know the exact
process that led to the text's appearance. But I don't think your
other example is a strong counterpoint. Oral tradition is definitely
not a way to preserve facts.

Anyway, this isn't my main point. Ultimately, I'm wondering what
sources scholars rely on that are external to the Bible.

[Peritas]

Post by Matthew Johnson
Two problems here: 1) do you know when Q was written (if it was
written)? 2) perhaps to you 20 years is a long time, but to them it
was not. And the memories were the kind of events that are seared into
one's memory.

I personally do not know when scholars think Q was written. And now
that you mention it, I would be curious to know what the consensus is
on this?

Your second point mentioned above is very subjective. On one hand, one
could easily argue that the memory of Jesus in general is "seared" into
the minds of the people of the time. Afterall, he obviously made quite
on impression, to say the least. But there is know way for any of us
to say with certainty that the *details* of his existence were well
preserved in the minds of his followers and/or observers. You're not a
mind-reading time-traveller and neither am I.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Peritas
Now, with that said, let me clarify by saying I'm not trying to
formulate an argument against Jesus dying on the cross. Rather, I'm
asking how do scholars deal with not having any Biblical references
to work with that were written down closer (within a year or so) to
the events in question? If, say, a journalist was going to write an
article on Christ dying on the cross, what three sources would he/she
use to corroborate the story?

But this is a common error: assuming they _were_ trying to think and
write like modern journalists or historians. They were not. They must
be understood on their own terms, NOT by anachronistially imposing
modern ideas on them. THAT is how scholars deal with " not having any
[closer] Biblical references".

Well, I wasn't trying to impose modern notions of journalism on the
peoples of Jesus' time. Rather, with my "journaist" question, I was
wondering how a *modern* day journalist would support the story. And
it doesn't have to be a journalist either. A scholar would do as well.

You say I should understand the people "on their own terms". Please
elaborate "on their own terms". How do you view their "terms"?

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Peritas

Post by Matthew Johnson
Two problems here: 1) do you know when Q was written (if it was
written)? 2) perhaps to you 20 years is a long time, but to them it
was not. And the memories were the kind of events that are seared
into one's memory.

I personally do not know when scholars think Q was written.

Then you had no right to assume that it was such a long time between
the time Christ did what he did, and the time it was written down.

Post by Peritas
And now that you mention it, I would be curious to know what the
consensus is on this?

What consensus? They can't even agree on whether or not it exists. But
that _is_ my point: because it is _possible_ that it existed, you
_cannot_ calim the certainty you claim, that the Gospels were written
so long after the events.

Post by Peritas
Your second point mentioned above is very subjective.

Well, so what? LOTS of important truths are dealt with
subjectively. It is a modern myth that trush must be 'objective' in
order to be true.

Post by Peritas
On one hand,
one could easily argue that the memory of Jesus in general is
"seared" into the minds of the people of the time. Afterall, he
obviously made quite on impression, to say the least.

This is true.

Post by Peritas
But there is know way for any of us to say with certainty that the
*details* of his existence were well preserved in the minds of his
followers and/or observers.

You don't know this. You are asserting far more than you can
reasonably know.

Post by Peritas
You're not a mind-reading time-traveller and neither am I.

Of course not. But it is not necesary to be one.

Post by Peritas

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Peritas
Now, with that said, let me clarify by saying I'm not trying to
formulate an argument against Jesus dying on the cross. Rather,
I'm asking how do scholars deal with not having any Biblical
references to work with that were written down closer (within a
year or so) to the events in question? If, say, a journalist was
going to write an article on Christ dying on the cross, what three
sources would he/she use to corroborate the story?

But this is a common error: assuming they _were_ trying to think
and write like modern journalists or historians. They were
not. They must be understood on their own terms, NOT by
anachronistially imposing modern ideas on them. THAT is how
scholars deal with " not having any [closer] Biblical references".

Well, I wasn't trying to impose modern notions of journalism on the
peoples of Jesus' time.

Yes, you were. What else _could_ you be doing with your comment about
"three sources"? That IS a modern idea.

Post by Peritas
Rather, with my "journaist" question, I was
wondering how a *modern* day journalist would support the story.

But this question doesn't make sense. Modern journalists were not
there. By definition, the topic is one of history, not journalism. And
the two use very different techniques.

Post by Peritas
And it doesn't have to be a journalist either. A scholar would do as
well.
You say I should understand the people "on their own terms".

Absolutely.

Post by Peritas
Please elaborate "on their own terms".

This is a major research topic. But http://virtualreligion.net/iho/ is
a good place to start.

Post by Peritas
How do you view their "terms"?

See above. I haven't looked at the whole site, so I can't guarantee
its quality, but it looks pretty good. Its main drawback is trying to
rely mainly on direct quotations from primary sources w/o discussion.

But that is not a fatal drawback. And despite the drawback, it was
highly rated by ATLA.

[Paul]

Post by Peritas
Oral tradition is definitely
not a way to preserve facts.

But this is a very modern-Western-centric viewpoint. In cultures where
literacy rates are low, and where functional literacy is even lower, oral
tradition IS THE way to preserve facts. This includes ancient cultures
(basically any before Gutenberg would qualify to a greater or lesser
extent), including the Holy Land. Ancient scholars were trained to memorize
verbal sources perfectly. Jewish rabbis were selected in part based on
their ability memorize. (Still are, I believe.) Even non-scholarly culture
was basically transmitted through oral tradition -- and let's remember that
ancient cultures tended to change at a far slower rate than we are used to
today, which is in part a testimony to the ability to preserve those
traditions intact through verbal transmission.

Don't make the mistake of presuming that a DIFFERENT way of doing something
is a WORSE way, necessarily.....

(And, as long as we're at it, you're making much of a 20-year presumed gap
before something got written down. There are many ancient sources that are
universally presumed to be accurate for purposes of 'secular' history, where
the distance from the events in question is one to two orders of magnitude
greater. And, btw, where several hundred years more lie between the initial
writing and the most recent manuscript that has been preserved and found.
If we are to insist that written sources be much closer in time than the New
Testament ones or we won't believe them, then we force ourselves to exclude
almost everything we think we "know" about ancient history entirely.....)

In Christ,
Paul

[zach]

Post by Paul

Post by Peritas
Oral tradition is definitely
not a way to preserve facts.

But this is a very modern-Western-centric viewpoint. In cultures where
literacy rates are low, and where functional literacy is even lower, oral
tradition IS THE way to preserve facts.

<snip>

Post by Paul
Don't make the mistake of presuming that a DIFFERENT way of doing something
is a WORSE way, necessarily.....

I forget which king or ruler (or god?) to which this was attributed,
but when Thoth revealed the secret of the written word to humanity, the
ruler commented that it was an inferior method of communication, and
encouraged laziness of thought. Heretofore, everything was memorized.
Funny that modern thinking about modern methods of enhanced
communications parallels this (radio, television, answering machines,
cell phonery, emails, IM, etc).

[Peritas]

Post by Paul

Post by Peritas
Oral tradition is definitely
not a way to preserve facts.

But this is a very modern-Western-centric viewpoint. In cultures where
literacy rates are low, and where functional literacy is even lower, oral
tradition IS THE way to preserve facts. This includes ancient cultures
(basically any before Gutenberg would qualify to a greater or lesser
extent), including the Holy Land. Ancient scholars were trained to memorize
verbal sources perfectly. Jewish rabbis were selected in part based on
their ability memorize. (Still are, I believe.) Even non-scholarly culture
was basically transmitted through oral tradition -- and let's remember that
ancient cultures tended to change at a far slower rate than we are used to
today, which is in part a testimony to the ability to preserve those
traditions intact through verbal transmission.
Don't make the mistake of presuming that a DIFFERENT way of doing something
is a WORSE way, necessarily.....

As I keep saying (in previous posts), I'm not trying to disprove
whether Jesus died on the cross or not. So, my comments regarding oral
tradition, or the discussion regarding the Gospels being written down
~20 years after Christ's death, are ultimately of little concern, but
rather are for the purpose of learning from others with a different
knowledge base. I keep trying to make clear (in previous posts) that
I'm just curious what sources outside the Bible are often used by
scholars in discussing Christ's death on the cross or other events in
his life. If there aren't any, then that is fine. History isn't
perfect. And any lack of secondary sources doesn't prove or disprove
anything.

Getting back to oral tradition... Just b/c Rabbis (or other scholars)
were trained to memorize facts exactly, doesn't mean they did so in all
cases. Knowledge is power, and back in the day before the internet,
and widespread literacy, it was easy to control the facts. Now, before
anyone gets upset, I'm not trying to imply some widespread conspiracy.
Rather, I'm just pointing out that a few bad apples could skew things.
So, I realize oral tradition has a place in conveying past events
through the ages, but it does indeed have its limitations.

[Peritas]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Peritas
I personally do not know when scholars think Q was written.

Then you had no right to assume that it was such a long time between
the time Christ did what he did, and the time it was written down.

[--snip--]

Post by Matthew Johnson
What consensus? They can't even agree on whether or not it exists. But
that _is_ my point: because it is _possible_ that it existed, you
_cannot_ calim the certainty you claim, that the Gospels were written
so long after the events.

Whether Q was written 1 or 10 years after Christ died has little to do
with the Gospels accuracy or lack thereof. The fact remains that the
Gospels were first penned at least 20 years after his death and not
necessarily by the apostles themselves. But let me reiterate that I'm
not trying to prove or disprove Christ dying on the cross. I am not
concerned with that fact. (See below...)

Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, so what? LOTS of important truths are dealt with
subjectively. It is a modern myth that truth must be 'objective' in
order to be true.

Interesting. I suppose this makes for an interesting philosophical
debate as long as one doesn't equate 'truth' with 'fact'.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Peritas
But there is no way for any of us to say with certainty that the
*details* of his existence were well preserved in the minds of his
followers and/or observers.

You don't know this. You are asserting far more than you can
reasonably know.

Well, from the original thread, one could see that you (or was it
another poster? I can't tell since this thread no longer has the
original tree attached to it) were asserting facts pertaining to the
memories of Christ's followers. My comment is just to point out that
one could not know one way or the other what the followers remembered.
In other words, maybe some of Christ's followers remembered details of
his life and maybe they didn't. In contrast, you (or some other
poster) was saying that they definitely would remember the details.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Peritas
Well, I wasn't trying to impose modern notions of journalism on the
peoples of Jesus' time.

Yes, you were. What else _could_ you be doing with your comment about
"three sources"? That IS a modern idea.

No. I'm sorry if my analogy confused you. I'm just trying to find out
what non-Bible sources are quoted by scholars! I do not care if Christ
died on the cross or not. As such, I'm not trying to prove it or
disprove it.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Peritas

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Peritas
I personally do not know when scholars think Q was written.

Then you had no right to assume that it was such a long time
between the time Christ did what he did, and the time it was
written down.

[--snip--]

Post by Matthew Johnson
What consensus? They can't even agree on whether or not it
exists. But that _is_ my point: because it is _possible_ that it
existed, you _cannot_ calim the certainty you claim, that the
Gospels were written so long after the events.

Whether Q was written 1 or 10 years after Christ died has little to
do with the Gospels accuracy or lack thereof.

Does it? If so, then that would _also_ imply that your initial
objection is groundless: the allegedly long lapse of time between the
Gospel events and the time they were written down would _also_ have no
bearing on their accuracy. After all, the whole idea behind Q is that
large parts of it are copied verbatim into the Synoptics.

So make up your mind.

Post by Peritas
The fact remains that the Gospels were first penned at least 20 years
after his death and not necessarily by the apostles themselves.

I see you still haven't made up your mind. If the _canonical_ Gospel
was 'penned' 20 years after the fact, but followed Q, which was penned
only _10_ years after the fact, then this would actually imply that
the canonical Gospels are MUCH closer to the source than most
historical sources.

Post by Peritas
But let me reiterate that I'm not trying to prove or disprove Christ
dying on the cross. I am not concerned with that fact.

As long as you are not even "concerned with that fact", you have
exactly 0 chance of understanding the Gospels.

Post by Peritas
(See below...)

Post by Matthew Johnson
Well, so what? LOTS of important truths are dealt with
subjectively. It is a modern myth that truth must be 'objective' in
order to be true.

Interesting. I suppose this makes for an interesting philosophical
debate as long as one doesn't equate 'truth' with 'fact'.

Are you one of these people who believes in the false dichotomy
between 'opinion' and 'fact'?

Post by Peritas

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Peritas
But there is no way for any of us to say with certainty that the
*details* of his existence were well preserved in the minds of his
followers and/or observers.

You don't know this. You are asserting far more than you can
reasonably know.

Well, from the original thread, one could see that you (or was it
another poster? I can't tell since this thread no longer has the
original tree attached to it)

"Original tree"? What are you talking about? Are you talking about the
absence of the 'References:' header?

I have been meaning to ask the Moderator about that for some time. For
some strange reason, the 'References:' header is no longer included in
SRC posts. Because of this Newsguy's web client can no longer follow
threads. But Google's can. Don't ask me how they do it;)

Post by Peritas
were asserting facts pertaining to the memories of Christ's
followers. My comment is just to point out that one could not know
one way or the other what the followers remembered.

This sounds dangerously close to solipsism. Human memory is NOT
completely untrustworthy.

Post by Peritas
In other words, maybe some of Christ's followers remembered details
of his life and maybe they didn't. In contrast, you (or some other
poster) was saying that they definitely would remember the details.

And you can't even remember which poster said what.

Post by Peritas

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Peritas
Well, I wasn't trying to impose modern notions of journalism on
the peoples of Jesus' time.

Yes, you were. What else _could_ you be doing with your comment
about "three sources"? That IS a modern idea.

No. I'm sorry if my analogy confused you.

You did not state it as an 'analogy'. It is back-pedalling for you to
now claim that it was just an 'analogy'.

Post by Peritas
I'm just trying to find out what non-Bible sources are quoted by
scholars!

But this isn't what you said, either. Yet if this is all you want,
then the website I already gave you does exactly that: it quotes many
such "non-Bible sources" to establish the cultural context.

Post by Peritas
I do not care if Christ died on the cross or not.

Again: this is a _sure_ recipe for misunderstanding the Gospels. After
all: the authors cared _very_ much. You cannot understand what the
authors were trying to do if you have no sympathy for their goal.

Post by Peritas
As such, I'm not trying to prove it or disprove it.

As such, you cannot understand even the first things about the
Gospels.

[Paul]

"Peritas" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:GFEUg.19064$***@trnddc04...
<snip> [replying to Matthew Johnson] >

Post by Peritas
Well, from the original thread, one could see that you (or was it
another poster? I can't tell since this thread no longer has the
original tree attached to it) were asserting facts pertaining to the
memories of Christ's followers. My comment is just to point out that
one could not know one way or the other what the followers remembered.
In other words, maybe some of Christ's followers remembered details of
his life and maybe they didn't. In contrast, you (or some other
poster) was saying that they definitely would remember the details.

Ah. Okay, then in that case, it's not so much a matter of trying to read
the followers' minds. It's simply a matter of using normal historical
method. That begins with the presumption that a record is more or less
correct ("accurate", "true", whatever) unless there is substantive reason
(i.e. evidence) to indicate it is not. Especially when we have multiple
documents that are reasonably mutually supporting that recount more or less
the same events -- which we do in the case of the New Testament. In such
cases, the burden is rather on those who would question authenticity. There
certainly are those who have tried to do so using the various critical
methods (and I really don't think we should try to rehash all of THAT.....).
But, after those criticisms held sway for a while in the late 19th and into
the 20th centuries, more recent work has tended to rebut the criticisms and
bring us back to the view that the gospels are presenting a basically valid
account of basically real events. There isn't 100% agreement on this, but
the mainstream/majority view now again supports historicity (in part because
of non-Biblical archaeology that has uncovered considerable evidence that
validates details that had been called into question; much of Luke/Acts has
been substantiated this way, for example).

(And, btw, regarding your indication that you're interested in finding out
about other sources, that's a valid goal. I believe this group's FAQ has
some material on that, as do a number of Internet sources. You might try
http://virtualreligion.net/vri/xnity2.html for a range of
historical/sociological research and analysis pertaining to the evidence for
Jesus' historicity. Or, here is a more concise assessment of the
extra-Biblical sources, although from a frankly Christian apologetic stance:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html . And, for good measure,
here's a fairly extensive essay from the same site addressing the entire
issue of reliability of the testimony of the NT witnesses, given the
timeframe, memory questions, and others that bear on your interest:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/loftus.html . Happy reading! :-)

In Christ,
Paul