$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus

The Rational Response Squad is proud to announce that we are giving believers of Jesus Christ a chance (again) to provide sufficient proof that he existed.


Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed lifetime of Jesus Christ. This means a single person who wrote about him while he was alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and for Jesus: a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the crippled, then died and came back to life to fly into the sky, the proof just isn't there. Our listeners are well aware that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ. This is your chance (again) to shut us up! Not only will you win $666, but we'll be forced to tell our audience that evidence exists, and our friend Brian Flemming will be forced to completely overhaul his movie.


AWARD FOR CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE: $666
The evidence must reconcile well with what we know of the time from Roman records and other writers of the day. They must also not conflict with cities, governments, places and people we know who actually lived during the time. Keep in mind the New Testament was written well after Jesus died, and serves as no proof of his existence.


What doesn't count as CONTEMPORARY evidence? Lucian, The Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Those are the most common proofs, none of which were written while Jesus was alive.


ALL RESPONSES MUST BE POSTED ON RATIONAL RESPONDERS MESSAGE BOARD FOR PUBLIC VIEWING, NONE OTHERS WILL BE CONSIDERED. PASS IT ON!!!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
(1) The Talmud is not

(1) The Talmud is not contemporary.  It is a collected group of traditions none can be dated with certainty prior to the third century.  Especially since it will not have been until the seventh century that the Talmud would have been completely codified and canonized.

(2) This is hardly evidence for a historical Jesus.  To put this into perspective, the Greeks claimed to be able to date the events of the epics of Homer based on a marble stele known as the Parian Marble (Marmor Parium).  They also claimed they had the tomb of Dionysus at Delphi where it was said to contain the limbs by which the Titans had torn apart.  Of course the Argonautika never happened and the Trojan War did not occur.  Dionysus was not torn limb from limb by the titans.  And Jesus never existed either.  All of these events and characters represent literary creations during a period where such creations were commonplace, and euhemerizing was just as common.

(3) On the note of euhemerization, you should be aware that by the time the Talmud would have been in the initial phases of compilation, at least all four Gospels would have been written and collected, and an established orthodoxy would have been put in place.  By the time the Talmud was finalized and canonized by Jews, the canonization of the New Testament would have been officiated for almost three hundred years (if we were to go by St. Athanasius' Easter letter).   I hope this helps put this into perspective for you, and further helps you see why the Talmud is not evidence for a historical Jesus.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Foodeater133
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-02-19
User is offlineOffline
1) Whilst it is a collection

1) Whilst it is a collection of traditions and not really specific stories, it is for certainty that a man named Yeishu is mentionned and given attributes to. Some things about him are in such similarity to what Jesus is supposed to be it is uncanny and yet so far off. To say the Talmud and such writings it is based off of hold nothing uncontemporary is a little presemptuous.

 

2) Whilst what you said about the Greeks was true, the original Talmud was a documentation of Jewish Law and Jewish history if I am not mistaking. When it was written historical fact was put in as well as the belief system of the time. This is why it was such a threat (and considered as such) to Christianity and why they had insentive to edit the Talmud to their liking. It basically said that Jesus (whom they believed godlike) was the offspring of a rape victim who's name bears striking similarity to a Mary.

So whilst it is not 100% I would place the original Talmud much more accurate than the Bible is (and by much I mean the Bible is full of shit and the Talmud isn't FULL of it).

3) It may not be evidence for a Jesus as the bible makes him out to be but I still stand that it could be evidence for a Jesus that the bible feared him to be.

Also what must be noted about your last paragraph is that the bible saught to create a god out of someone (fictional or no). The Talmud saught to document. You are equating a document to a story. I'm far more inclined to believe something that gives a logical explanation for history rather than another thing that tells me magic happened.

Also on the note of euhemerism:

If the Talmud based it's writings off of the bible we would see a correlation between the history of Jesus and Yeishu.

I just can't stop loving them, I love them, the way they taste!


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Really?

simple theist wrote:
No one in history has ever died for a nonexistant person that they made up. You can not provide a plausible reason that a Jew would follow a Rabbi that didn't exist or even why they would make up such a Rabbi.

Quote:
Heaven's Gate was the name of an American religious group led by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. The group's end coincided with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997. Applewhite convinced thirty-eight followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet.

This of course proves that there was/is a spaceship behind Hale-Bopp... It should also be noted that the cultists had themselves castrated prior to their blast off. Say what you will, those guys had FAITH.

Then too, there is strong evidence that Mayan and Incan sacrificial victims frequently volunteered for their fate, thus proving that the Gods of the Sun and Moon are real, after all, who would let their hearts get cut out for a 'myth'...

How many have died for the glory of Allah? Does this not mean that Allah is real?

You get my point.

Why do people make stuff up? Ask Joseph Smith (convicted con-man) or L Ron Hubbard...(writer of bad pulp sci-fi)

All the way up to the Nicean Council, there was a deep divide within the early christian community over the existence of Jesus as a historical, flesh and blood person. In other words, from the beginning, there were those that worshiped Jesus, who didn't believe he was a 'real' person, but rather a spiritual being. In my own opinion (yes, just theory) the REASON for making up false geneologies, tall tales and stories lifted and mis-interpreted from the OT was not malicious, but a sincere effort to provide 'evidence' to support a particular dogmatic stance. Many people believed, and still believe that it's ok to lie, as long as it strengthens the faith.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Foodeater133 wrote:1) Whilst

Foodeater133 wrote:

1) Whilst it is a collection of traditions and not really specific stories, it is for certainty that a man named Yeishu is mentionned and given attributes to. Some things about him are in such similarity to what Jesus is supposed to be it is uncanny and yet so far off. To say the Talmud and such writings it is based off of hold nothing uncontemporary is a little presemptuous.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?  The story would have been compiled long after the events of the Gospels were well known, brought together by a group of people who hated Christianity?  By the way, Yeishu is not Yeshua

Quote:
2) Whilst what you said about the Greeks was true, the original Talmud was a documentation of Jewish Law and Jewish history if I am not mistaking.

You're mistaken.

Quote:
When it was written historical fact was put in as well as the belief system of the time.

There was no such thing as "written historical fact" in antiquity.

Quote:
This is why it was such a threat (and considered as such) to Christianity and why they had insentive to edit the Talmud to their liking.

The Christians did not edit the Talmud as much as you are unfortunately lead to believe.  The stories in the Talmud are known as Toldoth Jesu, specifically that they are Jewish polemical works against Christians probably composed hundreds of years after the events were ever said to have taken place from the Gospel accounts.

Quote:
It basically said that Jesus (whom they believed godlike) was the offspring of a rape victim who's name bears striking similarity to a Mary.

Correlation does not equal causation.  In any event, the Talmud is simply way to late.  You don't seem to realize how much time has passed between the accounts and the first century.

Quote:
So whilst it is not 100% I would place the original Talmud much more accurate than the Bible is (and by much I mean the Bible is full of shit and the Talmud isn't FULL of it).

What are you talking about?  First, you have never read the Talmud, so perhaps you should back off this claim because you sound like a blooming idiot trying to defend it.  Second, I have the Talmud (all 22 volumes of it) sitting in my office in the other side of the house, and I, unlike you, have read a great deal of it.  The Talmud is a collection of oral traditions and laws of Jews in late antiquity and polemics against everything not-Jewish.  The stories include made up dialogs between Hillel and Pharisees, dialogs between unknown teachers and disciples, traditions and folklore, and stories of famous Jews.  The Talmud represents exactly the same thing that the Bible is: fiction.  It s just a lot more of it. 

Quote:
3) It may not be evidence for a Jesus as the bible makes him out to be but I still stand that it could be evidence for a Jesus that the bible feared him to be.

If the Christians had altered the text they would have done the same thing they did with Josephus in both the Greek version and slavic versions, which is completely interpolate Jesus in the Talmud in a Biblical fashion.  What you have in the Talmud is a Jewish polemic against Christians from the third - seventh centuries.  Perhaps you just don't understand what that is?  If you don't, it's okay.  But leave the history to me.

Quote:
Also what must be noted about your last paragraph is that the bible saught to create a god out of someone (fictional or no).

The Bible did not such thing.  The Bible is a collection of 60+ books written over a period of four-five hundred years.  Each author had their own intent and reasons for writing.  The more you attempt to prove this point the more you expose how little of an understanding you have of Biblical authorship and reasoning.  If anything, the Biblical books represent the highlight of Jewish inventiveness and creativity.

Quote:
The Talmud saught to document. You are equating a document to a story.

You don't even know the difference between the Talmud and the Bible, since you do not even know what the Talmud or the Bible is.

Quote:
I'm far more inclined to believe something that gives a logical explanation for history rather than another thing that tells me magic happened.

Once more, this just shows your ignorance on the subject matter.  Neither the books of the Bible nor the Talmud was intended to be a logical explanation for history. 

Quote:
Also on the note of euhemerism:

If the Talmud based it's writings off of the bible we would see a correlation between the history of Jesus and Yeishu.

Do you even know what euhemerization is?  I'm going to bet you don't.

Please stop arguing with me if you do not know what you're talking about.  It is just a waste of my time.  Your points are weak and ignorant and you've already got enough explanations for why your points are weak.  Seriously.  And lay off websites for information, try reading a few books.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Lyra (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I have not had the patience

I have not had the patience to read through the whole thing admittedly, I've skimmed through it.

If anyone tries to show the Biblical account of Jesus as some sort of proof saying that the gospels match up to one another please simply refer them to the Council of Nicea. If the gospels matched up initially why form a council to decide on things. Using the Bible for proof is bollocks.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I never heard anyone say the

I never heard anyone say the Trojan war never actually happened - however I heard some compelling reasons that it happened, but not where they thought - here

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Firearcher (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The Bible is a hoax

I have been researching this issue to death and all my research indicates that Islam, Judiasm and Christianity are all a crock!  Its a hoax people! Let me summarize as best I can.  At least the latter history.  Monotheism (Belief in one god) arose with King Tut's father about 1400 BC, coinciding with the books of Moses.  It has been proven that these early books were slightly modified.  At any rate they borrowed from earlier mythology from Persia and Egypt including the gods Amen, Is Rae and El. Israel.  All Egyptian gods. The books after moses were written over several hundred years.  In about 650BC the Jews lost a greart leader.  To bolster their spirits the clergy arbitrarily declared the coming of a new king, a messiah who would lead them.  Of course he never came.  Around 175BC the Essene cult broke from mainstream Judiasm.  They worshipped a man called the Teacher of Righteousness who was crucified and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.  The Essenes wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls and hid them in caves because the Jews hated them.  Fast forward to about 70AD.  The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek.  Nobody knows who wrote it.  Jesus is mentioned but Mark is the most simplistic of the gospels.  The writers were not very bright and borrowed from earlier mythology.  Research Chrshna, Bhudda, Mithra and The Teacher of Righteousness.  They are all the same person!!!! Thus A Damn Hoax played upon the ignorant. After that Matthew & Luke are written and the miracles enhanced and embellished to make their central figure Jesus more appealing.  Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark.  John was written after and contradictions abound among the gospels.  In 312 the Christians converted the Emperor of Rome.  Christianity became legal and the following century Rome fell. Surprise!  Education and science stalled and the Dark Ages begins.  Christianity reigns supreme. 

The clergy disagreed with the scriptures so they arbitrarily selected some and compiled the bible and destroyed others.  We have copies of copies of copies translated from Hebrew to Greek into Latin. The bible is created.

 

Regarding the argument here - No contemporary evidence.  They are correct.  There is none.  Furthermore the Jesus story was plagerized from earlier mythology.  Bhudda and Chrishna were born of virgins on Dec 25th and many other similiarities exist.  Available upon request.  Smiling

 

Christians though are violent and seek to force their beliefs on others.  Who bangs on your door selling reigion?  They went north into Europe of virgins and massacred a continent, committing a holocaust and destroyed the culture of white replacing it with Christianity.  Any Christian supports the faith that butchered our ancestors.  Yes I said butchered.  Hacking, cutting and beheading.  Research it yourself. EX: Charlemagne - Verdun 782AD.  They converted European kings.  Teutonic knights formed during the Third Crusade to wipe out the Pagans - murder them.  The Crusades were all about killing Muslims.  The Muslims, an equally violent offshoot of Judiasm is no different and equally evil.

 

After that comes the Protestant Reformation once the printing press is invented in 1455 and the bible translated into English, German etc. and distributed to common people. A blood bath followed, the rest is history.


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:No one

simple theist wrote:

No one in history has ever died for a nonexistant person that they made up. You can not provide a plausible reason that a Jew would follow a Rabbi that didn't exist or even why they would make up such a Rabbi.

Did you take any time at all to think that claim through?  Are you implying that Odin, Zeus, and many other gods in who's name people died and killed are in fact real?

simple theist wrote:
Further more, history records many false Messiah's of which a large number (or even a small number) or Jews have follwed. They have all been rejected, yet you claim they decided to not only follow a nonexistant Messiah, but some of them actually made this Messiah up.
One of the more probable explanations is that everything about Jesus including being followed by the masses was in fact made up.

simple theist wrote:
They wrote about a "Myth" and claimed he was real within one generation of the alleged "Myth" living. They make him out to be popular and then having him die on the exact day that the most people would be in the city of his death.
Exactly, we have this incredible story, and when you consider the complete lack of contemporary evidence, the silence speaks volumes.

simple theist wrote:
No contempary or even within 300+ years ever made the claim that Jesus didn't exist.
Why should someone from Rome around 33 C.E. claim Jesus did not exist?  I don't write anything about my younger brother Hugo or my pet pink unicorn Cameo not existing.

simple theist wrote:
The Jews claim he was a false Messiah and that the Disciples stole the body. They never once claimed he was a myth or the Christians borrowed from Pagan beliefs. If Jesus was a myth and a borrowed idea, then the Jews would have made that claim.
Do the Jews claim he was a false Messiah and that the disciples stole the body, or do the Christians claim the Jews claim he was a false Messiah and that the disciples stole the body???

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Cobra9Commander (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Resurrection appearances

Here's some information on the resurrection appearances from http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm: "In an essay carrying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is "free of doctrinal or moral error"), Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real. "It is quite obvious," Brown writes, "that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection."[1] "Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances," explains Brown, "the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem."[2] Citing immense textual evidence, Brown then declares his disapproval of the simples solution to the contradiction: "We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee."[3] Rather, concludes the Church spokesman, "Variations in place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative."[4] Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:[This post

Sapient wrote:
[This post reserved for future F.A.Q.'s] First one: Q. Are you guys for real? Will you really pay out money? A. Yes. We will gladly pay out for this evidence. In fact we will gladly join up with you to attain movie deals, book deals, and worldwide fame for the evidence that you find. We'll work together with you to become multi-millionaires!
sapient, I want to know why you consistently changed the requirements to fulfill this challenge.

 

But nevermind that. I do have contemporaneous evidence that Jesus existed, and it is found in 1 Corinthians 11:23. before quoting Jesus, Paul says "For what I recieved from the Lord". Rook Hawkins, and some legendary Jesus theorists (as Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes Eddy call them in their classic work The Jesus Legend: a case for the reliability of the synoptic Jesus Tradition, and if you have yet to read it, you and Rook really need to read it, it destroys the Jesus myth, it even addresses Dundes' arguments that Jesus fits into the "classic mythic hero archetype" BS). This however is a ridiculous rationalization and I will show why. "Recieved" and "delivered" is really a technical term among rabbinic circles for passing on Traditions (see: Eddy and Boyd 2007 pg. 220, wherein they cite Gerharddson 1961 pg. 280-99). In this case, Paul is saying that he recieved this tradition "From the Lord". This indicates that the tradition that Paul cites actually goes back to the Lord himself, hence providing the contemporaneous evidence which you ask for.
 

Now, there is other irrefutable evidence for Paul's belief in the historical Jesus (even though it is not contemporary, but this is shitty method anyway [the demand that evidence be contemporary], most especially in 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 wherein Paul identifies those who killed Jesus as the same ones who killed the prophets and now persecute the Christians. These people however exist on earth, not in heaven.

 

But I do wonder Hawkins and Sapient, have you read Boyd and Eddy's Jesus Legend? and if so, what do you think of the arguments that the "Mythic hero" archetype and pagan parallels argument is actually nothing more than circular logic?

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Epic fail. You used the

Epic fail. You used the Buybull.


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Epic fail.

MattShizzle wrote:

Epic fail. You used the Buybull.

mattshizzle, I am sorry that you are too ignorant to understand my argument. really, I am, but luckily, ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever

-Kent Hovind (I hate that guy, but that quote is definitely true)

Now, out of curiosity, do you know what the Bible is? the New Testament is a collection of 27 different letters, biographies, and apocalypses which were over a period of about 230 years were collected unto one cover called "The New Testament". put simply, you need to show why a document is untrustworthy if it has been canonized.

bonus points if you cite a credentialed scholar.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I know what the Buybull is.

I know what the Buybull is. It's bullshit. Using it is what is known as "circular logic." Asshat.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:I know

MattShizzle wrote:

I know what the Buybull is. It's bullshit. Using it is what is known as "circular logic." Asshat.

  *facepalm*

 

I cannot believe you are this ignorant. you have yet to explain why a document is unreliable if it was canonized. do you even know what "canonization" means?

 

using the bible as evidence is not circular reasoning. I am merely treating it like any other ancient work of history

 

it just relieves me that Rook Hawkins is sober enough to never appeal to this sort of argument

 

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:But I do

mig_killer2 wrote:

But I do wonder Hawkins and Sapient, have you read Boyd and Eddy's Jesus Legend? and if so, what do you think of the arguments that the "Mythic hero" archetype and pagan parallels argument is actually nothing more than circular logic?

Hi Mig_Killer,

I will not address your argument for contemporary evidence concerning Corinthians, since it is not contemporary.  Paul states explicitly that he receives his messages from revelation and not from any man - he explicitly is against the Jewish Christian church, calling them outright hypocrites, and these are the guys (Peter for example) which Gospel authors put down as eyewitnesses to his life.

But your comments about Boyd and Eddys is interesting.  I have read both of them, probably more than you have since I have many of their SBL articles dealing with the Jesus quest.  They both do posit some great speculations, but beyond that the substance is lacking.  But it would be irrelevant regardless.  I can not speak for Brian Sapient, but I do not put any weight into the pagan parallels, and no Jesus Mythicist that I know in scholarship uses the argument from pagan parallels.  What Boyd and Eddys are addressing in their work is a position that has not been held by serious scholars in decades, it is also one I do not hold to. 

I suppose that it is normal for somebody completely ignorant of my position to assume I do make this claim, since so many amateur metaphysicist Jesus mythers do use this claim and it has since been made more famous by the movie Zeitgeist which I do not like personally.  But, I do not hold to such perspectives.  I would suggest you get more acquainted with Richard Carrier and Thomas L. Thompson, Gerd Leudemann and Bob Price.  There are several books being published in the next few years concerning the reopening of the question of historicity, Richard Carrier is publishing one, Thomas L. Thompson is co-editing a book on the subject, I am coming out with one, and Bob Price is also working on another book which may deal with this subject.  To my knowledge, the books already out by Thompson and Price have not been refuted by any scholar through any monograph or collection of essays, nor any peer reviewed journal. 

Highest regards,

 

Rook

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Hi

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Hi Mig_Killer,

I will not address your argument for contemporary evidence concerning Corinthians, since it is not contemporary. 

Rook, I am deeply saddened that you did not feel obliged to respond to my argument, but my argument was not that the reference found in 1 Corinthians 11:23 is contemporary, but rather the tradition that Paul is repeating is contemporary for he says "I recieved from the Lord" which means that this tradition goes back to Jesus himself.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Paul states explicitly that he receives his messages from revelation and not from any man - he explicitly is against the Jewish Christian church, calling them outright hypocrites, and these are the guys (Peter for example) which Gospel authors put down as eyewitnesses to his life.

Rook, Paul was not calling these 2 men hypocrites for disagreements on the teachings of Jesus, but rather disagreements on issues which, VERY curiously, are never addressed by the Gospel authors. Secondly, I must repeat Eddy and Boyd's argument that there is NO EVIDENCE that anyone ever recieved revelations about historical events from Jesus himself via revelation.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
But your comments about Boyd and Eddys is interesting.  I have read both of them, probably more than you have since I have many of their SBL articles dealing with the Jesus quest. 

and what about the Jesus Legend?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
They both do posit some great speculations, but beyond that the substance is lacking.  But it would be irrelevant regardless.  I can not speak for Brian Sapient, but I do not put any weight into the pagan parallels,

well thank God you are sober enough to recognize that as BS.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
and no Jesus Mythicist that I know in scholarship uses the argument from pagan parallels. 

Robert Price used this in his interview with Flemming when he talked about the Justin Martyr quotes.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
What Boyd and Eddys are addressing in their work is a position that has not been held by serious scholars in decades, it is also one I do not hold to. 

so, wait, you dismiss Robert Price as a serious scholar? well I'll be damned (EDIT: later on I found you supporting Bobby Price) but regardless, they addressed arguments used by contemporary scholars (Price, Dundes, though I was disappointed that they never mentioned Carrier)

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I suppose that it is normal for somebody completely ignorant of my position to assume I do make this claim, since so many amateur metaphysicist Jesus mythers do use this claim and it has since been made more famous by the movie Zeitgeist which I do not like personally. 

then what was your debate with Tommy about?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
But, I do not hold to such perspectives.  I would suggest you get more acquainted with Richard Carrier and Thomas L. Thompson, Gerd Leudemann and Bob Price. 

I'm very aware of the arguments given by Carrier and the "arguments" given by Price. Although in my upcoming video series, I will address many arguments of Richard Carrier against the resurrection, specifically the argument that the disciples believed in a non-physical resurrection of Christ in my examination of 1 Corinthians 15. However, I was wondering if you can answer one question of mine about Richard Carrier

In Richard Carrier's essay Why I don't buy the resurrection story whose latest edition was published in 2006 at internet infidels, why did Carrier never bother to mention the arguments posed by N.T. Wright? N.T. Wright as you should know wrote an extensive survey about ancient beliefs about the afterlife (specifically Jewish, Pagan, and Christian beliefs) in 2003 called The Resurrection of the Son of God, and N.T. Wright has built a pretty much air-tight argument (it actually was a plethora of different air-tight arguments) for Paul's belief in the physical resurrection of Christ.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
There are several books being published in the next few years concerning the reopening of the question of historicity, Richard Carrier is publishing one, Thomas L. Thompson is co-editing a book on the subject, I am coming out with one, and Bob Price is also working on another book which may deal with this subject.  To my knowledge, the books already out by Thompson and Price have not been refuted by any scholar through any monograph or collection of essays, nor any peer reviewed journal. 

Highest regards,

 

Rook

well Rook, perhaps I may actually get those books someday, but I would recommend that you read Eddy and Boyd's discussion in The Jesus Legend becuase you apparently only dealt with The Jesus Quest (I personally have yet to read it, so I will not comment on your assessment). However, I should note that Eddy and Boyd actually deal with a large lot of arguments posed by Price's Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

 

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2

mig_killer2 wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Hi Mig_Killer,

I will not address your argument for contemporary evidence concerning Corinthians, since it is not contemporary. 

Rook, I am deeply saddened that you did not feel obliged to respond to my argument, but my argument was not that the reference found in 1 Corinthians 11:23 is contemporary, but rather the tradition that Paul is repeating is contemporary for he says "I recieved from the Lord" which means that this tradition goes back to Jesus himself.

No, Paul is using the term "received" here in the same manner he uses it when refers to "receiving" the revelations from Jesus.  Paul never met Jesus and makes this clear in his epistles.  No historical Jesus scholar which I know of today would make the suggestion that Paul knew Jesus and received a teaching from him. 

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
But your comments about Boyd and Eddys is interesting.  I have read both of them, probably more than you have since I have many of their SBL articles dealing with the Jesus quest. 

and what about the Jesus Legend?

I haven't read it because it is not pertinent to me.  You must understand that I have a rather large reading list of material for my research, much of it into modern literary understandings of structure and genre.  I often do not make my scope large enough to include apologists.  I'm sorry if this troubles you, but I simply do not take them seriously enough to include them in my research.  I have serious scholars with critical experience that I must spend time with.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
and no Jesus Mythicist that I know in scholarship uses the argument from pagan parallels. 

Robert Price used this in his interview with Flemming when he talked about the Justin Martyr quotes.

Bob Price was citing a direct reference to an early church father.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
What Boyd and Eddys are addressing in their work is a position that has not been held by serious scholars in decades, it is also one I do not hold to. 

so, wait, you dismiss Robert Price as a serious scholar? well I'll be damned (EDIT: later on I found you supporting Bobby Price) but regardless, they addressed arguments used by contemporary scholars (Price, Dundes, though I was disappointed that they never mentioned Carrier)

I'll talk to Bob to see if he knows about this critique.  Perhaps he already has up a response that you might want to look at.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I suppose that it is normal for somebody completely ignorant of my position to assume I do make this claim, since so many amateur metaphysicist Jesus mythers do use this claim and it has since been made more famous by the movie Zeitgeist which I do not like personally. 

then what was your debate with Tommy about?

I don't know who Tommy is.  Is he the blogger who wants to debate me?  Often times people assume my position (ignorantly) before finding out anything about me.  Perhaps people should spend more time examining my arguments instead of taking them for granted?

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
But, I do not hold to such perspectives.  I would suggest you get more acquainted with Richard Carrier and Thomas L. Thompson, Gerd Leudemann and Bob Price. 

I'm very aware of the arguments given by Carrier and the "arguments" given by Price. Although in my upcoming video series, I will address many arguments of Richard Carrier against the resurrection, specifically the argument that the disciples believed in a non-physical resurrection of Christ in my examination of 1 Corinthians 15. However, I was wondering if you can answer one question of mine about Richard Carrier

In Richard Carrier's essay Why I don't buy the resurrection story whose latest edition was published in 2006 at internet infidels, why did Carrier never bother to mention the arguments posed by N.T. Wright? N.T. Wright as you should know wrote an extensive survey about ancient beliefs about the afterlife (specifically Jewish, Pagan, and Christian beliefs) in 2003 called The Resurrection of the Son of God, and N.T. Wright has built a pretty much air-tight argument (it actually was a plethora of different air-tight arguments) for Paul's belief in the physical resurrection of Christ.

Because scholars aren't supermen.  Most likely he didn't know of the book or he didn't find it relevant.  He had other projects going on, like his two articles published in the collection of essays The Empty Tomb.  Additionally he was starting work on his dissertation.  I'm sure the most simplest explanation is just that he didn't have time to get to it.  But just because he didn't, doesn't mean other scholars won't.  If they haven't already.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
There are several books being published in the next few years concerning the reopening of the question of historicity, Richard Carrier is publishing one, Thomas L. Thompson is co-editing a book on the subject, I am coming out with one, and Bob Price is also working on another book which may deal with this subject.  To my knowledge, the books already out by Thompson and Price have not been refuted by any scholar through any monograph or collection of essays, nor any peer reviewed journal. 

Highest regards,

 

Rook

well Rook, perhaps I may actually get those books someday, but I would recommend that you read Eddy and Boyd's discussion in The Jesus Legend becuase you apparently only dealt with The Jesus Quest (I personally have yet to read it, so I will not comment on your assessment). However, I should note that Eddy and Boyd actually deal with a large lot of arguments posed by Price's Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. 

Take care.  Feel free to stop in stickam one show-night and hang out.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
before I begin, I must say

before I begin, I must say Rook you have been much more sober and much more civil than the others I have encountered on this board (though don't be so quick to let this stroke your ego)

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

No, Paul is using the term "received" here in the same manner he uses it when refers to "receiving" the revelations from Jesus. 

I am sorry that I did not point this out earlier, but the word "delivered" as in "recieved" and "delivered" are technical terms for passing on tradition. Paul however in using these terms never uses in describing a revelation he recieved from the now-ascended Christ. also, as I noted before, there is no evidence that anyone ever recieved information on historical events via divine revelation.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Paul never met Jesus and makes this clear in his epistles. 

we cannot be so sure about that now.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
No historical Jesus scholar which I know of today would make the suggestion that Paul knew Jesus and received a teaching from him.

I think you would do good to watch JohnLArmstrong's video "Debunking Christian Apologetics:'Scholars Say' here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unyz1WQFmpQ

damn, that has to be the MOST useful video John has EVER made.  

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
But your comments about Boyd and Eddys is interesting.  I have read both of them, probably more than you have since I have many of their SBL articles dealing with the Jesus quest. 

and what about the Jesus Legend?

I haven't read it because it is not pertinent to me. 

You certainly would find it pertinent as it thrashes the legendary Jesus theory.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You must understand that I have a rather large reading list of material for my research, much of it into modern literary understandings of structure and genre.  I often do not make my scope large enough to include apologists.  I'm sorry if this troubles you, but I simply do not take them seriously enough to include them in my research.  I have serious scholars with critical experience that I must spend time with.

For someone so engaged in counter-apologetics, I think you should definitely be made aware of the most cogent arguments against your (and hence your subscribers') position.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
and no Jesus Mythicist that I know in scholarship uses the argument from pagan parallels. 

Robert Price used this in his interview with Flemming when he talked about the Justin Martyr quotes.

Bob Price was citing a direct reference to an early church father.  There is nothing wrong with that. 

The point I was getting at was the fact that Price used this to support his thesis that Christianity drew extensively from Pagan mystery religions. (though I trust that you are more than aware of why the Justin Martyr quotes are bad arguments for the legendary Jesus theory

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
What Boyd and Eddys are addressing in their work is a position that has not been held by serious scholars in decades, it is also one I do not hold to. 

so, wait, you dismiss Robert Price as a serious scholar? well I'll be damned (EDIT: later on I found you supporting Bobby Price) but regardless, they addressed arguments used by contemporary scholars (Price, Dundes, though I was disappointed that they never mentioned Carrier)

I'll talk to Bob to see if he knows about this critique.  Perhaps he already has up a response that you might want to look at.

it looks something like this:

Robert M. Price wrote:
I am gratified that my friends and colleagues Paul Eddy and Greg Boyd have taken my work as seriously as they have in this comprehensively researched book. I urge any reader of my books to read this one alongside them!

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I suppose that it is normal for somebody completely ignorant of my position to assume I do make this claim, since so many amateur metaphysicist Jesus mythers do use this claim and it has since been made more famous by the movie Zeitgeist which I do not like personally. 

then what was your debate with Tommy about?

I don't know who Tommy is. 

Kabane52

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Is he the blogger who wants to debate me?  Often times people assume my position (ignorantly) before finding out anything about me.  Perhaps people should spend more time examining my arguments instead of taking them for granted?

I think Kabane may have misunderstood your position to some degree.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
But, I do not hold to such perspectives.  I would suggest you get more acquainted with Richard Carrier and Thomas L. Thompson, Gerd Leudemann and Bob Price. 

I'm very aware of the arguments given by Carrier and the "arguments" given by Price. Although in my upcoming video series, I will address many arguments of Richard Carrier against the resurrection, specifically the argument that the disciples believed in a non-physical resurrection of Christ in my examination of 1 Corinthians 15. However, I was wondering if you can answer one question of mine about Richard Carrier

In Richard Carrier's essay Why I don't buy the resurrection story whose latest edition was published in 2006 at internet infidels, why did Carrier never bother to mention the arguments posed by N.T. Wright? N.T. Wright as you should know wrote an extensive survey about ancient beliefs about the afterlife (specifically Jewish, Pagan, and Christian beliefs) in 2003 called The Resurrection of the Son of God, and N.T. Wright has built a pretty much air-tight argument (it actually was a plethora of different air-tight arguments) for Paul's belief in the physical resurrection of Christ.

Because scholars aren't supermen. 

as an Atheist historian (not merely a historian who happens to be an Atheist) so thoroughly engaged in counter-apologetics, Carrier is damn near obligated to respond to Wright's arguments. If you have actually read Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God, you would be able to refute his discussion on the Resurrection body with ease.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Most likely he didn't know of the book or he didn't find it relevant. 

The Resurrection of the Son of God is easily the most important scholarly treatise on the Resurrection available today. This isn't written by some scholar that no one knows about, this is written by Bishop N.T. fucking Wright.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
He had other projects going on, like his two articles published in the collection of essays The Empty Tomb.  Additionally he was starting work on his dissertation. 

I thought he was a Ph.D Candidate, as in had already completed his dissertation.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I'm sure the most simplest explanation is just that he didn't have time to get to it. 

that is a damn shame

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
But just because he didn't, doesn't mean other scholars won't.  If they haven't already.

Bob Price tried to refute it in his review, but his attempt at showing Paul's belief in a non-physical resurrection were laughable and in his review he ignored the vast bulk of N.T Wright's arguments.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
There are several books being published in the next few years concerning the reopening of the question of historicity, Richard Carrier is publishing one, Thomas L. Thompson is co-editing a book on the subject, I am coming out with one, and Bob Price is also working on another book which may deal with this subject.  To my knowledge, the books already out by Thompson and Price have not been refuted by any scholar through any monograph or collection of essays, nor any peer reviewed journal. 

Highest regards,

 

Rook

well Rook, perhaps I may actually get those books someday, but I would recommend that you read Eddy and Boyd's discussion in The Jesus Legend becuase you apparently only dealt with The Jesus Quest (I personally have yet to read it, so I will not comment on your assessment). However, I should note that Eddy and Boyd actually deal with a large lot of arguments posed by Price's Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. 

Take care.  Feel free to stop in stickam one show-night and hang out.

perhaps I will if you and your other guests are as civil as I have been (or reasonably close to my level of civility)

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias