here ya go: http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm and josephus has more than just one quote about Jesus. i recognize the one you posted about is considered to be controversial. Jesus is talked about in the Talmud. there's a book by Gary Habermas called "The Historical Jesus" you might find interesting. EDIT: i found more: http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/histjesu/histjesu.htm Mara Bar-Serapion × Sometime after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), Mara Bar-Serapion (a Syrian) wrote a letter from prison to his son "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given." (quoted from McDowell, p. 52) Additonal Talmud references: "Would you believe that any defense would have been so zealously sought for him? He was a deceiver, and the All-merciful says: 'You shall not spare him, neither shall you conceal him'. It was different with Jesus, for he was near to the kingship." (from a third-century commentary on the proceeding passage) "Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni, and Todah." (from Sanhedrin 43a)
Ugh. More balanced: John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus JR Porter, Jesus Christ: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (her From Jesus to Christ is also good) N.T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is Marcus J. Borg & N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions
Substance is relative and, pardon the assumption, I think you are looking at those arguments through the eyes of a Christian feeling you need to defend your faith from skeptics. From my POV I find this very interesting from an intellectual standpoint and throws some insight on history but it neither makes me believe more or less in Christianity. I don't know the Osiris story very well but from what little I understand of it there does seem to be parallels such as while Osiris didn't return to life on Earth he did return to life after 3 days and quickly went to rule in the world of souls. Further Jesus' time on Earth after the resurection was very short and quickly ascended to Heaven. Not exactly the same but similar. Anyway resurection stories aren't exclusive to Christianity or Pharonic religions but also occur in Greek Mythology, the legend of Orpheus or Persephone, the idea of reincarnation in Eastern religions is a variation on the idea of resurection. What these tell me is that the idea of rising from the dead, or triumph over death, is a very powerful idea to humanity. That's fine but it is an interesting matter of scholarly debate. I'm not going to be so naive to not pretend that there aren't many who have an agenda out there to discredit Christianity and are using this to do so. My own view though is why should what some scholars or archeologists do matter to faith? I've brougth this up before on other subjects but I feel that a faith that can't stand to be contradicted by rationalism seems to me to be a very shallow and sterile faith. I don't know whether Jesus or Sakaymuni Buddha actually existed or were fixtional creations but it doesn't matter. The historical fact of their existence is less important than their message.
Did someone ask for a non-Christian source text that accounts for Jesus' existence? The Koran has plenty of references to Jesus, more so than any other along with Moses and Abraham.
So let's avoid the whole: is Christianity real or not debate. I wonder how Christianity deals with people born before Christ or those who have not heard his message. It is fascinating that Christianity has only existed for 2000 years out of the tens or hundreds of thousands of years of human existance. That means millions or billions of people have not heard his message.
I don't know about other Christians, but I think Mormons believe God gives all those people another chance in the afterlife. Something about never having to go to hell unless you're presented with a real choice. I'm sure I've messed up the doctrine, but I just remember being impressed with that aspect of Mormonism.
Islam has it too. Basically, God can't punish the truly ignorant, and you're only responsible for what you know.
i don't remember not reading it. i don't believe it says one way or the other,for sure. God's mercies are beyond my own understanding. Many Christians believe, for example, that Jesus went and preached to the dead during the 3 day period before his resurrection. But I'm not a Christian solely for the gain of heaven. There's a reward in the here and now..a peace..that is my focus. Similar to the reward you get from spending time with those who you love. rimbaud -- why are those more balanced? everyone brings their bias into every conversation. authors bring their own bias into every book they write. the sources that i pointed to are all listed in Habermas' book. honestly, they're where i first learned of them. have you read Habermas' book or are you just assuming it's less balanced? as an aside...it strikes me as funny that we're so concerned about balance...yet we recognize that virtually every historian think that a man named Jesus lived in that area of the world, developed a following and was killed. But it's more "balanced" to argue to the contrary. Probably because it's more interesting. Or more likely because it's gets a reaction from idiots like me. sishir - if defending my own faith to those who seek to discredit it makes me defensive, then i'm guilty. we are, after all, talking about the faith i've staked my own life on. read into that whatever you want from an historical perspective or whatever. from the title of the thread to the posts, there is a bit of an attack. i'm not sure why it's so important for some people to tear at other people's faiths. i'm not sure what's gained from that. as for the other issue...to Christians it is that he existed that carries with it the message. That God loved the world that much. That carries meaning that's no longer there if Jesus never actually existed. As for Osiris....his body was cut up in many pieces...they reassembled it and his spirit was able to live again. His body was not resurrected. There is not resurrection there in the way that Christians understand resurrection. Osiris' spirit lives on in another world. Egyptians believed that if your body was jacked up after death, your spirit couldn't move on. That why they did the whole mummification thing.
This has been a good thread - very interesting. I don't know if the underpinnings of christianity are based on pagan religions. I don't think anyone could possible prove it. That being said, it's irresponsible to accept that pagan mythology consistently borrowed from each other over the course of thousands of years, yet christianity did not. If you are christian, it should not pollute the message - it just means that certain dogma/rituals/dates are exaggerated or based on what was (at that time) traditional concepts of "god" or "religion". I cannot reconcile facts such as these and come to the conclusion that christianity is "the one true faith". Does this make me atheist? - I think not. However, if madmax, rhester, hotballa et. al. can attain that faith, well good for them. Honestly, the motivation for believing as one does is more interesting to me - but that's a different topic. Reggietodd: I must have really upset you somewhere (which, I'm sorry to say, makes me smirk ) but I hope you don't hold it against me. I really try hard not to lamblast a person's faith - I try to question out of my own selfish curiosity. I know I can come off very bitter about religion - I have my reasons, particularly againsty christianity. I'd be happy to share them - but I think I've stated them many times in previous threads.
Well, Max, perhaps I used improper language creating a buzzword - "balanced". Certainly not everything I posted is balanced in the sense you are saying (Crosson, for example. Beutifully written, researched, entertaining, but very strong on one side that has mostly been trashed). For the most part, though, the list I promoted has many works that are not positing an argument as much as surveying the entirety of current historical Jesus research or, in the case of the last book, presents a dialogue between two polar opposite interpretations of the historical Jesus (but Borg is not an advocate of no historical Jeses, so it is not the fringe extreme). I mean balance by exposing oneself to multiple views, not having an opinion that is so balanced it is impotent. I have not read all of Habermas's book, no. I have read excerpts, summaries, and reviews as well as writeups about him personally (and I have been to his website). Nothing wrong with him, he is just an apologist and nothing else. Because of my own bias I also think it does not speak well for him that he teaches at Liberty. I prefer religious scholars who are more academic heavyweights. As for your aside - why did my list bring that on? All of the books I listed are about an historical Jesus and were not written by atheists who argue against as you seem to suggest. Further, none of my posts in this thread have promoted an argument against an historical Jesus. I said that I personally expect this movie (knowing nothing of it but looking to odds) to be poorly made and academically deficient.
Anyone else find it ironic that the enlightened ones are the non-believers? Everyone claims to be enlightened, or have their own views on religion. It is the basis for a life long debate, very few facts exist, the basic histories in the bible are from ancient religions, like the great flood, Adam and Eve etc..etc..etc.. Stories passed down from generation to generation and taken as fact, no different than the Shamans passing down histories in the rain forests of South America. To believe in God you do not necessarily have to believe in religion, God is the creator of all things.....and is probably laughing his/her/it's ass off at people's feeble attempts to define him/her/it. How can a race that can not truly fathom even the universe we live in contemplate the existance of God? How can so many people take the text written and translated many times over as fact? It just goes to show that the most poinent statement in the universe is still the same. "Ignorance is bliss" DD
Of course, all of the religions borrow stories from each other, especially those that work to help control the ignorant masses.
MadMax; I have a hypothetical question. If archeologist could find no evidence that Jesus actually existed would you question your belief? I ask this not as an attack or a trap but to better understand where your beliefs lie. To me the question of factual existence is a scholarly question and not one of faith. Putting it in terms of my own faith belief I find it intellectually very interesting the archeological and historical evidence about whether Sakyamuni Buddha existed but that doesn't affect whether I believe the message. This may not be the same thing as Christian belief in Jesus because Buddhism isn't completely comparable to Christianity but providing this as an example. Again I'm not naive enough to believe that there aren't people looking to attack Christianity and as a Christian you feel obligated to defend it but what I am trying to understand is the relationship between faith and intellectual investigation.
I just found irony....in the argument.... Also, I do believe that Jesus, like Muhammed, did exist. I simply doubt the claim that he was resurrected, or that he was the son of god, anymore than anyone else on the planet. DD
At present that is not hypothetical as there is no evidence or record of evidence. That would be near impossible, though, considering the time and region. There is not even strong evidence that Nazareth was in existance at the time. Most of the artifacts are from later dates and there are only a few small samples of pottery and such from the time. Again, it is impossible to know whether that means anything other than it can't be proven or disproven archaeologically. DaDa - I also do not understand your post. Anyone who thinks they are enlightened or know who else is enlightened by definition cannot be enlightened. Irony only exists if it is known or eventually proven to be true that not believing in something was more correct than believing in something.
