Do you believe in the mythist theory ?

[Colanth]

1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.

I won't strikethrough because you wouldn't understand, but it's a minority view among apologists, and an almost unanimous view among scholars.

2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.

The only thing "in question" about Tacitus is that he never names Jesus.  "Christus" refers to an anointed leader - ANY anointed leader - not Jesus in particular.

3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.

Theologists aren't considered authoritative sources for historical fact.

4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.

NOT a mark of a reliable hiostorical document.

[/quote]I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. [s:3113xfgy]Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel[/s:3113xfgy], and others are excellent sources.[/quote]Since you haven't ever posted any authoritative sources, how about you either stop referring to sources or you post some authoritative ones?  (And how about not ignoring everything that's difficult for you to come up with an answer for?  That's the mark of someone who's just going to keep arguing that he's right even when he's proved wrong.)

[Colanth]

Colanth, the above post of mine written in a completely different sense than the current conversation. Lol. But probably you got that.

Since you responded to something in an entirely different sense than my post, yes.  The writing down of the Old Testament meant that no one had to rely on oral tradition any longer, because they had advanced to written tradition.  Cultures that have their important works written down soon stop honoring oral historians, and the ability to accurately recite volumes of history soon leaves the culture.  It happened to the Hebrews of the Exile, the people who wrote most of the Old Testament (some parts were added later),  soon after 500 BCE.  (It's most likely that all the Hebrews living in a single city would have been a pretty homogenous group, especially if they were captives.)

[Colanth]

1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.

I won't strikethrough because you wouldn't understand, but it's a minority view among apologists, and an almost unanimous view among scholars.  (BTW, the particular passage - and that's all I'm talking about here - is called an insertion, not a forgery.)

2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.

The only thing "in question" about Tacitus is that he never names Jesus.  "Christus" refers to an anointed leader - ANY anointed leader - not Jesus in particular.

3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.

Theologists aren't considered authoritative sources for historical fact.

4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.

NOT a mark of a reliable hiostorical document.

I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. [s:2qpff15l]Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel[/s:2qpff15l], and others are excellent sources.[/quote]Since you haven't ever posted any authoritative sources, how about you either stop referring to sources or you post some authoritative ones?  (And how about not ignoring everything that's difficult for you to come up with an answer for?  That's the mark of someone who's just going to keep arguing that he's right even when he's proved wrong.)[/quote]

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Having some issues with the formatting there Colanth?

1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.

I won't strikethrough because you wouldn't understand, but it's a minority view among apologists, and an almost unanimous view among scholars.

2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.

The only thing "in question" about Tacitus is that he never names Jesus.  "Christus" refers to an anointed leader - ANY anointed leader - not Jesus in particular.

3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.

Theologists aren't considered authoritative sources for historical fact.

4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.

NOT a mark of a reliable hiostorical document.

I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. [s:1ygo89xe]Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel[/s:1ygo89xe], and others are excellent sources.

Since you haven't ever posted any authoritative sources, how about you either stop referring to sources or you post some authoritative ones?  (And how about not ignoring everything that's difficult for you to come up with an answer for?  That's the mark of someone who's just going to keep arguing that he's right even when he's proved wrong.)

Fixed it for yeh.

[Colanth]

Oops.  Yeah, I sometimes forget to add a closing quote code, and I submit without previewing.  (Well, I forget quite often, but I usually preview before submitting and catch it.)

Thanks.

[Sleeper]

1. The view that Josephus is a forgery is a minority view among scholars.

Are you arguing ad populum? The question is - "who's right?" Not, "how many?" If you remove the obvious interpolations, it creates a one, maybe two sentence section in the midst of hefty paragraphs - and it also does not fit in with the "sad calamities" [Josephus' words] that were the subjects of sections 2 and 4. The Jesus section is a hiccup - remove it altogether, making section 4 section 3, and the whole thing flows effortlessly and holds context.

2. Then you have to throw out the entire collection of Tacitus' writings, if you call his sources into question.

Please consider these two passages:

[spoil:1r1iibhh]

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

[/spoil:1r1iibhh]

[spoil:1r1iibhh]

The initiative in transferring the Empire to Vespasian was taken at Alexandria under the prompt direction of Tiberius Alexander, who on the 1st of July made the legions swear allegiance to him. That day was ever after celebrated as the first of his reign, though the army of Judaea on July 3rd took the oath to Vespasian in person with such eager alacrity that they would not wait for the return of his son Titus, who was then on his way back from Syria, acting as the medium between Mucianus and his father for the communication of their plans. All this was done by the impulsive action of the soldiers without the preliminary of a formal harangue or any concentration of the legions.
While they were seeking a suitable time and place, and for that which in such an affair is the great difficulty, the first man to speak, while hope, fear, the chances of success or of disaster, were present to their minds, one day, on Vespasian quitting his chamber, a few soldiers who stood near, in the usual form in which they would salute their legate, suddenly saluted him as Emperor. Then all the rest hurried up, called him Caesar and Augustus, and heaped on him all the titles of Imperial rank. Their minds had passed from apprehension to confidence of success. In Vespasian there appeared no sign of elation or arrogance, or of any change arising from his changed fortunes. As soon as he had dispelled the mist with which so astonishing a vicissitude had clouded his vision, he addressed the troops in a soldier-like style, and listened to the joyful intelligence that came pouring in from all quarters. This was the very opportunity for which Mucianus had been waiting. He now at once administered to the eager soldiers the oath of allegiance to Vespasian. Then he entered the theatre at Antioch, where it is customary for the citizens to hold their public deliberations, and as they crowded together with profuse expressions of flattery, he addressed them. He could speak Greek with considerable grace, and in all that he did and said he had the art of displaying himself to advantage. Nothing excited the provincials and the army so much as the assertion of Mucianus that Vitellius had determined to remove the legions of Germany to Syria, to an easy and lucrative service, while the armies of Syria were to have given them in exchange the encampments of Germany with their inclement climate and their harassing toils. On the one hand, the provincials from long use felt a pleasure in the companionship of the soldiers, with whom many of them were connected by friendship or relationship; on the other, the soldiers from the long duration of their service loved the well-known and familiar camp as a home.
Before the 15th of July the whole of Syria had adopted the same alliance. There joined him, each with his entire kingdom, Sohemus, who had no contemptible army, and Antiochus, who possessed vast ancestral wealth, and was the richest of all the subject-kings. Before long Agrippa, who had been summoned from the capital by secret despatches from his friends, while as yet Vitellius knew nothing, was crossing the sea with all speed. Queen Berenice too, who was then in the prime of youth and beauty, and who had charmed even the old Vespasian by the splendour of her presents, promoted his cause with equal zeal. All the provinces washed by the sea, as far as Asia and Achaia, and the whole expanse of country inland towards Pontus and Armenia, took the oath of allegiance. The legates, however, of these provinces were without troops, Cappadocia as yet having had no legions assigned to it. A council was held at Berytus to deliberate on the general conduct of the war. Thither came Mucianus with the legates and tribunes and all the most distinguished centurions and soldiers, and thither also the picked troops of the army of Judaea. Such a vast assemblage of cavalry and infantry, and the pomp of the kings that strove to rival each other in magnificence, presented an appearance of Imperial splendour.

[/spoil:1r1iibhh]
If a consideration of yours is the attention paid by Tacitus, you should seriously consider worshipping Vespasian.

3. According to Dr. Mark Foreman and Dr. Gary Habermas, the oral tradition was very reliable.

Maybe. Kind of a flimsy channel for the omnipotent, omniscient creator though, right? Even if their oral tradition was rock solid (which is more than debatable), you know what it's not? Proof. Of anything. Of any kind. And it wasn't good enough for even the gospels to agree with each other.

4. The Synoptic Gospels did all use the 'Q' source, but they each had their own unique material as well.

Please consider these passages just from the first synchronous events of the first two (chronological) gospels, Mark and Matthew:

[spoil:1r1iibhh]

"Now John was clothed with camel hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and he ate locusts and wild honey." Mark 1:6.

~vs~

"Now John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey." Matthew 3:4.

[/spoil:1r1iibhh]

[spoil:1r1iibhh]

"Now After John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." - Mark 1:14,15.

~vs~

"Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14 so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled..." - Matthew 4:12-14.

[/spoil:1r1iibhh]

[spoil:1r1iibhh]

"Passing alongside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them 'Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.' and immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on a little farther, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in their boat mending nets. And immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants and followed him." - Mark 1:16-20.

~vs~

"While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him." - Matthew 4:18-22.

[/spoil:1r1iibhh]
There are numerous other examples throughout the gospels of nearly word-for-word recitations. If one wishes to avoid needless hypotheses, the most likely explanation is that the three later gospels were copied from Mark, then embellished for theological purposes.

I'm not as smart on this issue as I would like to be, so I encourage you to check out the issue for yourself. Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Michael Licona, Lee Strobel, and others are excellent sources.

We're pretty familiar with all of them, and.... they're not completely excellent. Far from it, actually. Habermas, I think, is the best of them.

Oh, and...

Modern scholars consider Luke the Gospel writer to be an excellent historian.

Read The Mystery of Acts by Richard Purvo and you may just rip Luke and Acts out of your Bible.

[Minimalist]

Sulpicius Severus - Chronica a 5th century work - Book II - XXIX

//http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PII11-5.TXT

CHAPTER XXIX.

    Is the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it
happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at
Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the
emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of
building a new city. And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried
escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He
therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel
tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds
of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts,
they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain
by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day
came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the
night.

No writer, xtian or pagan,  prior to Severus makes reference to Tacitus' alleged writing about Nero punishing xtians and Severus himself does not cite Tacitus as a source nor does he have the whole of the so called passage.  Note also that Severus leaves our all the Pilate stuff and Christ stuff.  Further, as Candida Moss notes in "The Myth of Persecution" this is right around the time that the church started dredging up these blood curdling martyr tales as a means of motivating the masses.
Convenient.

//http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/tacitus-and-bracciolini-the-annals-forged-in-the-xvth-century-john-wilson-ross/1103649453?ean=9781455409402

[ApostateLois]

It always makes me laugh whenever a Christian is asked to provide some extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and all they can is pull out the Josephus quote (very likely forged), the Tacitus reference, and a few others. The Bible indicates that Jesus healed the sick, the lame, and the blind, raised dead people to life, walked on water, turned water into wine, and did all those other miracles. Most of them were witnessed by hundreds of people who tagged along with him like lost puppies, doting on his every word. Why did NONE of those people write about him? Surely, stories of his miracles would have reached various Jewish and Roman officials, who would have written them down as curiosities if nothing else. There should be thousands of references to this Jesus Christ fellow--not just in a few gospels and epistles that were written years and years after he died, by people who never actually knew him, but contemporary writings, made within his lifetime by people who actually witnessed his deeds and sermons. But we find nothing. Not so much a brief mention is made by anyone in all of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, or Galilee--or anywhere else. Why does this not set off any alarm bells in Christians?

[Minimalist]

The Bible indicates that Jesus healed the sick, the lame, and the blind, raised dead people to life, walked on water, turned water into wine, and did all those other miracles.

Um...they would have us believe that he came back from the fucking dead.  In an absurdly superstitious society like the Roman Empire the idea that a convicted criminal would come back to life would have been BIG NEWS - all over the Empire.  It would have been seen as a repudiation of the emperor ( who appointed the magistrates ) by heaven itself.  Yet...from the first century we have not so much as a whisper.

When Pliny, c 112 AD finally writes a report about questioning xtians he mentions nothing along these lines even though he tortured slaves to learn the truth.  Tacitus was a personal friend of Pliny.  Some of their correspondence survives.  To close the circle, Suetonius was a junior officer on Pliny's staff in Asia Minor.  None of them know anything about any fucking "jesus."  T'is a puzzle.

[Colanth]

But we find nothing. Not so much a brief mention is made by anyone in all of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, or Galilee--or anywhere else. Why does this not set off any alarm bells in Christians?

You used to be one, right?  (I never was.)  So you tell us why it never set off alarm bells for you.

I NEVER saw any of it as anything other than a fairy tale for adults.  Not even when I was 6 (when I first realized that some adults actually believed this stuff).