Sorry Alan but even Pontius Pilot is hard to find as a historical figure.This jewish historian was not a contemporary of Jesus.I dont doubt that Jesus as a teacher must have existed but as a historic recorded figure there is no contemporary accounts.It is at least forty years after his death that we see him being given the press we would expect of a man of his renown.
Mithra's has been associated with miracles, resurrection and there are many other similarities with Christs life.He had a hierarchy of priests that had their sacred caves under the present basilica.Many of the early christian paintings are identical to the worship of Mithra's.The spread of christianity occurred as the mithras was in retreat, it appears they switched their allegiance and attributed many of their myths to jesus.Romans are well known for adopting and adjusting their gods to fit those who appear to be superior to theirs.When the priests saw their god in retreat they absorbed and adjusted the new one to theirs.It may still have the hand of god on this message but that is a matter of faith not history.

XRIS they have found in archaeological digs stones clearly indicating that Pontius Pilot was a real Governor of Judea in the period of Christ walk on earth

I saw it on no less than a National Geological TV episode, but I will return with solid facts becuase the existence of Pilot is an indisputable fact of history

I respectfully disagree that there was any switch from any belief or philosophy to the Christianity of Jesus. Jesus was unique, what about the biblical references I gave referring to the life and death of Jesus, centuries before he walked the earth?


Peace

Xris, Jesus as a purely mythological figure is a minority view among scholars - and not a significant minority, either. The vast majority of historians agree that Jesus is a true historical figure.

Josephus is not the only writer to mention Jesus; in fact, the Josephus account is one of the least reliable. Tacitus mentions Jesus in his Annals, a completely secular work of history from the Roman statesman.

Are the Gospels historically accurate? There may be aspects which are historically accurate, but by and large they are not acceptable historic sources. However, given the number of other references to Jesus, or Christos or the Wise King of the Jews, regardless of our deficiency in knowing the precise details of his life, we can be confident that Jesus did live, teach, and was executed.

I will grant you that it is extremely likely that this man Jesus did teach and was executed even if we have no contemporary history.Its the invention that followed that i dispute.

As we start to focus more concentratedly on the biblical texts (as defined in OP) I would hope to encourage serious attention and discussion. The better conclusion, based on study, is that the Roman historian usually is more reliable a source on at least the fact that a cult had developed and had centered around an actual person who had been executed by the procurator of Judea (Pontius Pilate; and that inscription in stone was found in 1961). As xris has most correctly pointed out, by this information alone, we do not have a picture/description/biography of that very person from these sources; a fact without dispute.

The likelihood that that particular section of book 18--namely, passage 3 of chapter 3 in Antiquities of the Jews--is spurious is high enough that we can discount the content. Besides the understood textual history, and all, even by the contextual flow and tone of that section, we can determine that there is a break--as though by insertion. And since Alan has diligently provided the Greek, you can see there how in line 2 ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. (ho kristos autos hen) that Yeshua is being called he messiah--which Flavius Josephus would very hardly have written based on the bulk of his writings and his more obviously intended audience. 'Kristos' is the LXX rendering of usually 'messiah,' or as an attributive-like word for 'king.' That short section was more likely added a Christian scribe, and thus is not trustworthy for historical accuracy. (of course the quote Alan had pasted said as much, but just to recap)

There are seven documents (letters) which are seen by scholarship as being authentically from Paul, and which can be fairly placed on the time line of having been originally penned in the stretch from around 50 CE (1 Thessalonians) to 62 CE (at latest; Philemon). Other letters have been either edited, or are from different hands. Before going into the gospel narratives, then, I'd like to lay out some points in and about these documents which will have bearing on our conclusion as to inspiration and other questions. I'll put that in a following post.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

This may get automerged, let's see...I purposely waited just a bit.

1 Thessalonians

We come upon the written document and need to firstly determine what genre of document it lends itself to being. We take that into consideration firstly. (and I am mostly going to give skeleton outline here, so if anyone wishes further discussion on any point and asks, I will gladly provided English translations and/or transliterations of the Greek; and aparatus notes)
[INDENT]By looking at verses 1:1~3; 2:1~4, 9, 13, 17, 18; 3: 1~13; 4:1, 2, 13; 5:1, 12, 23~28, it is determined that the document is correspondence--a letter written by one to one (or group to group).
[/INDENT]Having determined that it is correspondence, we should check for sender and recipient.
[INDENT]Holding arguments as to the historicity of Paul on the side (I find them quite weak, and not in need of even bringing up), we can see that most likely (if not THE actual case) the letter's source is Paul; in office as troupe leader (which is why, as best can be determined, Silvanus and Timothy are mentioned in the opening greeting. [vs.1:1]).

From verses 1:1~10; 2:1~20; 3:1~13; 4:1, 2, 9, 10, 17, 18; 5:1~11, 14, 25~28, we can determine that there was a direct and immediate audience. (I have stessed this here because of the importance of the notion/fact)
[/INDENT]Next, we can consider the nature of the letter--and it is quite easy to see (so I'll skip the outline) that it is of a religious belief-system nature. With this much in mind, therefore, it would be useful to test for time reference. I will treat this, in general, as 'relevancy of time,' and will label it universality and timelessness. In this letter, we will find that there is a very high degree of specificity towards the direct and immediate audience, thus giving the document a great lack of universality and timelessness. Only in chapters four and five can even the least bit of universality and timelessness be drawn out, such as 4:3~6; 5:15.

The results of this investigation provide us with the understanding that the document is a closed instrument. It is a letter with a specific purpose in a closed time frame, whose author and recipients most obviously had exact understanding of purpose and reason, and content of the letter. There is so little room to give consideration that any universal and timeless intent had been behind, or included in, the content and purpose for the letter, that we can claim that once the letter had been delivered, and read by the intended audience, its purpose had been served and all other relevancy (other than historical document value) had ended. Also, there is no reason at all to consider its having been penned through supernatural superintendence--especially is this true in that information contained in the letter about the parousia (which probably means the state of having arrived at a location) is most likely false--to put it most softly. I'll expound on that in up coming posts.

You just said earlier when I asked you 'miracles asside' do you believe that Jesus was a historical figure. You said:

"There is no historical evidence of the man they called Jesus."

So which is it? Do you believe that he existed and you deny the miracles? Or do you deny his existence entirely like you did on the 4th page of this thread.

There is no contemporary history of Jesus.

What do you mean by that? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Xris, Jesus as a purely mythological figure is a minority view among scholars - and not a significant minority, either. The vast majority of historians agree that Jesus is a true historical figure.

Josephus is not the only writer to mention Jesus; in fact, the Josephus account is one of the least reliable. Tacitus mentions Jesus in his Annals, a completely secular work of history from the Roman statesman.

Are the Gospels historically accurate? There may be aspects which are historically accurate, but by and large they are not acceptable historic sources. However, given the number of other references to Jesus, or Christos or the Wise King of the Jews, regardless of our deficiency in knowing the precise details of his life, we can be confident that Jesus did live, teach, and was executed.

The Gospels and were not intended to be historical the content , and the eternal truths are what is important . . .

Thanks for the 'heads-up' there,xris. As it is, nevertheless, I do hope that those interested, or following, can at least check the methodology of the investigation--and perhaps double check by verifying the English translation or version they may have on hand. I am willing to take, and handle, as best I can, any disputing of what I have learned, or reason, or present, and such, but it is not necessarily dispute or debate that I am trying to get.


(bold mine)

While, as mentioned in an earlier post, we will find universal and timeless 'truths' in the gospel stories, we will very soon run into problems if we were to attempt to hold that the narrative accounts had not been written so as to relate what was to have been taken as having been historical acts, events, and occurances for the most part; except for much of John.

I'll be back with more, soon enough. KJ

My claim is that the theatre that followed was not about Jesus but the cult that certain men built around his fame.His message to me is not about his written story or men's wish for him to be sacred, its the message.

Do i have to worship him to appreciate his contribution to the advance of mankind? cant i just love him for his own sake?

To an extant you are right. Much of what happened to Jesus' ministry after his death revolved around political ambition.

You are absolutely correct, I think, when you say that his spiritual significance rests solely on the teachings of Jesus. However, if Jesus' spiritual significance rests upon his teachings, then his message is inextricably tied up in the written story of his ministry because we find his teachings in the written record.



What is it to worship Jesus other than loving him for the sake of his teaching?

Extracting the truth from the myth is not denying his ministry but pointing out the message he would have us listen to.

Alan considering Josephus was a roman stooge, Tacitus only mentions the Christians and why they are Christians and both where born fifty to sixty years after Jesus died they cant be called eye witnesses can they?
No ones denying that a man called Jesus a teacher preached his wonderful new message of love and mercy.His life and execution would not have been significant to those who destroyed him , it was daily occurrence in a Roman province.The hills every morning would be covered with crosses of the crucified, life was cheap.Jesus the man teached mercy when it was unknown,he taught love and redemption to those who craved it.It must be his message otherwise his story would not have survived.
My claim is that the theatre that followed was not about Jesus but the cult that certain men built around his fame.His message to me is not about his written story or men's wish for him to be sacred, its the message.
Do i have to worship him to appreciate his contribution to the advance of mankind? cant i just love him for his own sake?

Alan, one question here, please. I would like to ask you to introspect, and explain why you think it might be that in your post #53, you quoted my #52, while not entering any content in that #53 which responds in any manner, really, to my #52?

Then, we will find that the quotes you have quoted in your #58, above, which are not trustworthy historically, especially number one (which is spurious), are being given by yourself as though they were historical accounts--meaning as though the words spoken were actual historical events. This is what I had been pointing to in my #52 above, in response to your having stated that the gospel narratives had not been intended to have been historical (post at top of this page).

If we were to attempt to assert that the authors of those autographs (and the extra hands completing According to John) had not had the intention of writting historiographs, we'd soon run into trouble--because most obviously they had been.