I think you have to sacrifice a goat or something...Greek gods were notoriously indifferent to the plight of man. "Talk is cheap and whiskey costs money"

Today's Bible reading is John 19, in which Jesus is whipped, beaten, dressed up as a king, declared by the Roman governor to be innocent two more times, convicted of the crime of being the king of the Jews, crucified, and buried in a tomb.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=19&v=1&t=NLT#fnv/24_6

The details of how this happened fulfilled the prophecies of Psalm 22, among others.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=22&v=1&t=NLT#1

Awk, the difference is that Christians don't see the need to spam your postings as you do ours.

http://chzpokememes.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/pokmon-so-it-is-true1.jpg

That's quite the over- generalization you've made there. You can speak for all Christians?

If me trying to save your eternal soul is "spam" to you, that's your problem.

Awkward, I'm not speaking for anybody. I've just pointed out the difference between the Christians (and others, including avowed atheists) on this site who are willing to engage in rational communication on the one hand, and you, who for whatever reason feel the need to spam this thread.

...on the other.

"and you, who for whatever reason feel the need to spam this thread."

Irony alert

Mujus, belittling my religious beliefs as "spam" is incredibly offensive.

Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam!
Lovely spam! Wonderful spam!
Spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam spa-a-a-a-a-am spam.
Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!
Spam spam spam spam!

Hi TWA,

I appreciate your effort to save my soul. I don't really find Greco-Roman paganism compelling for a couple of reasons, though. In Christ I find a historically verifiable central figure to the religion. A figure who had many eye-witnesses to his death and subsequently met and talked with him after his resurrection. Most of these people went to rather gristly deaths without a single one of them recanting in spite of extant letters to Roman governors from emperors (Tiberius, I think but I'd have to look it up) instructing them to let Christians go if they renounced their faith. So these guys

1) Were eyewinesses and would have known if it was a hoax,

2) Didn't have any apparent monetary or personal gain from their preaching,

3) They were Jewish and would have believed that they were putting their souls in jeopardy for lying and blasphemeing, (so not only were they not getting a reward on earth but none in Heaven either)

4) Could have escaped death by renouncing their faith

Any one of them recanting would have botched the whole thing. The Romans were pretty good at getting the message out to their provinces. The Christians were a big thorn in their sides, so they would have been highly motivated to put an end to the movement if they had a renunciation from one of the apostles.

There isn't anything remotely similar that I'm aware of in Greek paganism. Can you help me out by bringing it forward if there is?

Not a single one of them recanted, even though only one that I know of escaped the persecutions of the 1st Century.

Sorry didn't add that into the first post.

Awk, you know full well, or you should, that by "spam" I meant your insistent posting and reposting --when was it, yesterday?

Isn't it odd that we know so little about these alleged apostles who supposedly 'died' for the Christ cult? And what we do know is contradictory and most of it is not primary source material at all. The Bible is silent about virtually all of the apostles save Judas (the account of which is contradictory) and James.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I should know full well, should I? I'm sorry, but I cannot read your mind.

And honestly, this is really taking away from what our primary focus should be: Zeus.

Quite an interesting discussion we seem to have going on here.... If Zeus is to become the primary focus, I propose discussing Zeus as depicted in Homer's /Iliad/, since it's the work that best exposes, in my opinion, the character flaws of the Greek Pantheon (inherited from their mortal creators) as well as the relationships between and among the individual deities. That said, Yahweh and his offspring can be interesting in their own ways.

Hey there Crazy A,

I know I'm probably going to stir up a massive hornet's nest with this one but: there is no historically verifiable evidence of Jesus of Nazareth or his Disciples. None. And I say this not from some hack Internet conspiracy theory point of view. This is actually my area of research. There are stories. There are legends. But no actual archeological or corroborated first hand testimony.

Even within the Bible, the four contradictory Gospels were written years (or even centuries) after the events they portray. The Pauline epistles, if actually written by a "Paul" who lived the life portrayed in Acts, describe a heavenly Christ, not an earthly Jesus, not dissimilar to many of the other savior gods of the era. Literary analysis, however, points to them being written by several hands, orthodox and gnostic, over the course of the first half of the 2nd century.

The only real verifiable evidence we have from the 1st century comes very late and refers to a sect of believers causing trouble in Rome as either "Christians" or "Chrestians". This does confirm a group of people believed in either the "Anointed One" or the "Good One"; it does not tie them to an actual historical person. Much the way the existence of Greco-Roman Herculean sects doesn't prove the historical existence of a Herakles.

As to your other point, check out the historically verifiable tragedy of Hypatia of Alexandria if you want a heart-rending story from Greek paganism/rationalism. The recent movie "Agora" does a fairly historically accurate job of retelling the last days of her life up until her actual murder by fanatical Christian monks egged on by Archbishop (now Saint) Cyril of Alexandria. Apparently the filmmakers decided that dragging a woman through the streets behind a horse-drawn carriage until her skin was in tatters and then finishing the job by skinning her alive with oyster shells was just too gruesome a scene to portray on film.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about the above. Likewise, if you do have sources for the letters from Emperors to Governors re: Christians, I would love to see them. I, however, am aware of none that would have any historical relevance to the man "Jesus".

Why bother debating you, Silvanus? You're doubtless aware already of Josephus and of Tacitus, and of the fact that your opinions on Paul are in a small minority among serious scholars. So, I could point you to those scholars, and then you could give me the reasons you've decided they're all wrong, which I probably wouldn't find convincing, just as you wouldn't find my arguments convincing. The only difference between us, probably, would that I would try not to be as disingenuous as you just were in presenting fringe views as academically respectable.

I mean, it all sounds fun, of course, but I'm busy, you know?

Yes, I've read Josephus (all of him, even the boring bits) and the relevant passages of Tacitus. As well as Pliny the Younger and Suetonius, And from reading them and a large number of reasoned arguments both for and against the legitimacy of the relevant passages, I have come to my own currently held conclusions. If anyone were to present legitimate historical evidence to alter those conclusions, I would consider it just as I considered all the evidence in coming to them in the first place.

The views I expressed on Paul are not in a small majority and to paint them as such is to be guilty of the disingenuousness of which you accuse me. The debate about the Pauline corpus is over what percentage is later work, not the widely accepted conclusion that some percentage is. All serious academic and literary scholars have long acknowledged the layers of writing and rewriting apparent throughout the Bible, old and new testament, and the Pauline epistles are no different.

And, as I think I made clear at the end of my post, I would love you to point me to those "serious scholars". Give me names. Give me titles of papers and/or books. As I said, this is my area of research. I generally come at it from a more archeological and historical angle than most Biblical scholars but I am always looking for someone new to widen my horizon.

Or are you too busy?

Silvan, a good source that deals with each of Paul's letters in detail, including an analysis of the reasons why his authorship is questioned in some of them, is http://bible.org/seriespage/pauline-epistles .

Here's an excerpt of the discussion of the authorship of Timothy, one of the most frequently challenged: "First Timothy
Author and Title:
Because of their close relationship in thought and focus, the attestation and authorship of all three pastoral epistles will be dealt with here. It has also been pointed out that because all three are so closely connected in thought and style that they usually are either all accepted or all rejected as being written by Paul.

Though all three of these letters have been attacked more than any other of Paul’s epistles, both the external and internal evidence supports Paul as the author. Some early church fathers as Polycarp and Clement of Rome, allude to these epistles as Pauline. In addition, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon do as well. Moreover, the books declare Paul as the author (1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1, Tit. 1:1). In addition, the doctrinal teaching and autobiographical details fit with the life of an aged Paul at the close of his ministry (see 1:12-17; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1-8; 4:9-22; Titus 1:5; 3:12-13).64 Those who question Paul’s authorship usually do so on the following grounds:

… that (1) Paul’s travels described in the pastorals do not fit anywhere into the historical account of the book of Acts, (2) the church organization described in them is that of the second century, and (3) the vocabulary and style are significantly different from that of the other Pauline letters. Those who hold to the Pauline authorship reply: (1) there is no compelling reason to believe that Acts contains the complete history of the life of Paul. Since his death is not recorded in Acts, he was apparently released from his first imprisonment in Rome, traveled over the empire for several years (perhaps even to Spain), was rearrested, imprisoned a second time in Rome, and martyred under Nero; (2) nothing in the church organization reflected in the pastorals requires a later date (see Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1); and (3) the question of authorship cannot be decided solely on the basis of vocabulary without considering how subject matter affects a writer’s choice of words. Vocabulary used to describe church organization, for instance, would be expected to be different from that used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. There is no argument against Pauline authorship that does not have a reasonable answer. And, of course, the letters themselves claim to have been written by Paul.65"

Here are the footnotes:
"64 For a detailed discussion of the issues of authorship see Donald. Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale Press, London, 1969, pp. 11-52; W. Hendricksen, A Commentary On 1 & II Timothy and Titus, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1957, pp. 4-33; and Henry Clarence Theissen, Introduction To The New Testament, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1943, pp. 253-60.

65 Ryrie, p. 1916."

Silvanus, unless you are willing to accept evidence that contradicts your own preconceived notions, you will not be able to come to the truth. A quote from a great, easy-to-read source about those who challenge Jesus' identity,http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-jesus.htm, points this out: "The problem is that the entire “Historical Jesus” movement is a product of the 20th Century philosophy of naturalism, in that all debate begins with a shared, yet concealed, presupposition – that anything outside the realm of natural explanation can never be backed by historical evidence. In a nutshell, the movement holds that it's impossible for the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like people walking on water, food multiplying, and people being raised from the dead. Of course, this is not scholarly evaluation of the historical evidence or Biblical manuscripts – this is strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism."

And here's a link to multiple sources that reference Jesus, both Christian and non-Christian, from the OT prophets who prophesied about his coming to the historians Josephus and Tacitus, as mentioned by our Crazy Anglican friend: http://www.jesuscentral.com/jc/historical-sources-describe-jesus.php

You might object that these websites are Christian. And I'd point out that your references are naturalists. But there's plenty of historical evidence, if you can just accept it.

silvanus,

Certainly there are Pauline books not ocnsidered by a majority of scholars to be genuine. But there are at least 7 that are considered so by a very large majority. Let's consider I Corinthians. It's going to be pretty hard to find a "scholarly article" arguing that Paul wrote most of this letter, because it's so uncontroversial in the first place. A couple of pretty random names that accept all or most of it as genuine would be Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, and Jerome Murphy O'Connor. Sadly, I don't have very quick access to their books (it's usually a library order), so a specific discussion would/will drag out a bit.

What would be most useful is if you gave citations for YOUR point of view on I Corinthians, or perhaps an argument.

Mujus, while I do appreciate your willingness to bring so much great material to the table (and I do truly appreciate it), I do not appreciate your unfounded assumption that my positions are just "preconceived notions", not founded on actual research. You seem to be assuming that, because my conclusions do not coincide with yours, that I have not devoted sufficient time to analyzing these questions to land at well reasoned conclusions. On the contrary, I have devoted a great deal of time to my studies. Having grown up in a household with a Catholic mother and a Lutheran Father, these morality stories had been with me since birth.

I have previously read the overviews on bible.org and have found them to be pretty lacking in verifiable evidence. For the most accesible example: the page that you reference begins with a "Background of Paul". This biography is pretty straightforward and sticks pretty close to the biography I learned back in Catholic Sunday school. However, I could construct a similarly detailed biography of Achilles using references from the Iliad, the Odyssey, several ancient tragedies, and other fragmentary texts. Does that make it historically accurate? No. There is no archeological evidence that backs up a Trojan War so there is no reason to assume that any of the heroes portrayed as participants should be taken as anything other than legend. On the contrary, the stories of Alexander the Great seem fantastical but we do have archeological evidence of his campaigns to India so, while we may not take every anecdote about him as historical fact, we do pretty much unanimously agree that he did exist. Paul exists nowhere outside of his epistles and the story in Acts. There is no archeological trace of a wandering evangelist of the influence that the Pauline epistles suggest.

Jesuscentral.com is new for me but, on hopping over there to check it out, I follow the link to "Eyewitnesses who saw Jesus" and the first link on the list is for Paul. Unless I'm much mistaken, Paul isn't even considered to be an eyewitness to Jesus in the most literal conservative reading of the scriptures. Paul didn't come to Christ until his mystical conversion on the road to Damascus, long after Jesus had shuffled of his mortal coil. A quick survey of the rest of the site reveals no sources from outside of the bible aside from Josephus and Tacitus. A quick search online should give you ample evidence that the legitimacy of these two passages is greatly debated across scholarship. A particularly well-researched and well-reasoned online version is at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html (and, while the author generally lands on your side of this debate, in this instance the evidence is just too strong and he finds at least half of the Josephus material to be too far gone to be acceptable). I happen to find the questioners to have the upper hand, you find the accepters to have it. I doubt we're going to convince each other on this point so we'll just have to let it stand as is.

However, I can't take the rest of jesuscentral seriously for the simple reason that it is a primary tenet of logic that you cannot prove a premise by using that premise, aka circular reasoning. Trying to claim the historical validity of the bible by quoting from the bible will not stand up to even the most generous of scientific scrutiny.

I do not object that the sites are Christian. I object that they presuppose articles of Christian faith to support their proofs. To suggest that old testament prophesies of a messiah somehow proves the existence of a historical Jesus is asking a bit too much for a reasoned debate.

Evidence isn't something that needs to be accepted. It's something that needs to be corroborated. Otherwise it falls into the category of hearsay.

semck,

it's way past my bedtime but I will drop you a line tomorrow. I Corinthians is a tough one but I'll give you what I've got and let you decide if it's worth further investigation or not.

cheers,
s

I don't get the hostile treatment of Silvanus by these two supposedly 'respectful' Christians. Oh well I'm sure we'll still get a dozen or so posts about wonderfully nice Semck and Mutejus are, and how they are so willing to engage people in intellectual discussion, even if they disagree.