Moral laws of the Bible

[One Above All]

Uh... No. Either there was a magical Jesus, or some random schizophrenic dude named Jesus. Or many Jesuses, some of who had schizophrenia. However, evidence of a person named "Jesus" is only evidence of a person named "Jesus". It's not evidence of magic, and it most certainly does not give credibility to the Jesus described in the Bible.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Actually, there aren't a lot of conversations going on. There is a lot of gang banging going on so that I have to pick and choose what I will respond to from an amazing amount of dreck. This is starting to bore me.

My main goal is to respond to sane people who are able to listen and ask good questions about what I write. If they are hard questions, so much the better. You fit that bill admirably.

May I modify this and use it as my signature?

[Historicity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Primary sources are original materials. Generally, primary sources are not accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary, although it may be used by historians in the abscence of a primary source. In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.

[jaimehlers]

You are mostly wrong but I cannot be arsed to go through it all again. I suggest that you look up "primary source" in a good history text book and inform yourself.

Your actions here are not those of someone who is a scholar, they're those of someone who has a vested interest in proving something she already believes and blows off anything that doesn't fit.  The way you're responding to other members of the forum shows this.  Scholars don't get a free pass when it comes to things they research.  In fact, the criticism scholars have to regularly put up with makes the stuff happening here and now look placid by comparison.  If you can't even deal with this relatively minor stuff without getting bored and annoyed, there is no chance, at all, of you being a scholar in real life.

[Asmoday]

You are mostly wrong but I cannot be arsed to go through it all again. I suggest that you look up "primary source" in a good history text book and inform yourself.

You know, since you are such a knowledgeable person who tells me that I should educate myself on what a primary source is, I thought I'd do just that right now.

And the good thing is that in this day and age universities are so so nice to have a knowledge base online. So, why don't we have a look?

Oh, look, here's the university of Maryland:
Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources

Hm....that doesn't sound right, does it? It's almost as if my previous post got it just right and showed that you are wrong about what a primary source is. Well, I'm sure they got it messed up there; you couldn't possibly be wrong. It's just the university of Maryland after all.

So hey, let's look up another one. Why don't we hop over to Princeton?

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

Wow, that doesn't look like your definition of what a primary source is again. Pfft...Princeton, what do they know?

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I am responding to silly, aggressive and foolish diatribes appropriately. It was fun for awhile but I am bored with it now. I will no longer respond to anything but genuine questions from those who might actually be inclined to converse. Unless, of course, I see something so delightfully foolish it would be impossible to resist responding ....

[Maggie the Opinionated]

... Wow, that doesn't look like your definition of what a primary source is again. Pfft...Princeton, what do they know?

They do an excellent job of explaining what a primary source is and that explanation supports what I have said. Not what you have said.

[Asmoday]

I am responding to silly, aggressive and foolish diatribes appropriately. It was fun for awhile but I am bored with it now. I will no longer respond to anything but genuine questions from those who might actually be inclined to converse. Unless, of course, I see something so delightfully foolish it would be impossible to resist responding ....

They do an excellent job of explaining what a primary source is and that explanation supports what I have said. Not what you have said.

Strange, I don't see them say that a primary source is something of totally unknown authorship written 30 to 100 years after the fact and being a compilation of previously existing sources plus additional editing.

[velkyn]

Now to Velly, who is such a joy to slog through!  Silly, girl. Strive to write carefully. You asked me if I could translate it without looking it up. I answered you honestly.

Love it!  What an excuse.  Oh dear, I said “can” and not will you.  let me guess, you are about 13 years old.

What is particular preposterous about your "challenge" is that one does not need to have ever studied a word of German to do so, if one is familiar with the literature of sociology or  biblical studies. You might just as well ask if I know what c'est la vie means.

  and yes, ladies and gentlemen, we still have no evidence that Jane knows German. 

Uh, actually I didn't. I asked you to translate a phrase designed to see if you knew any German that is not widely familiar and is, indeed, somewhat slangy. On the other hand, if the shoe fits... müh!

  And just as expected.  Why, Jane, you could have used any one among a multitude of German words and you “just” chose that one. I love to see Christians lie so badly.  Do you think your god is as stupid as you would wish to pretend I am? Tsk, putting your immortal soul on the line for something so petty.  How many “hail marys” will that be?

.... No, Jane, the consensus of the academic world is not that the NT or the OT are “primary historical source material “ as you have claimed.

Yes, Vel. That is the consensus of the academic world. But I have only made the claim for the New Testament. You really need to read more carefully.[/quote] 
Not at all Jane.  You have yet to shown one single historian who says that the NT is “primary source material”.   You try to claim that any “good history text” supports your claim on what a primary source is.  And you have been shown wrong repeatedly, but I’ll do so again.

A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:
•   ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (excerpts or translations acceptable): Diaries, speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, news film footage, autobiographies, official records 
•   CREATIVE WORKS: Poetry, drama, novels, music, art 
•   RELICS OR ARTIFACTS: Pottery, furniture, clothing, buildings
Examples of primary sources include:
•   Diary of Anne Frank - Experiences of a Jewish family during WWII 
•   The Constitution of Canada - Canadian History 
•   A journal article reporting NEW research or findings 
•   Weavings and pottery - Native American history 
•   Plato's Republic - Women in Ancient Greece 
 http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html

 

A primary source is a document, speech, or other sort of evidence written, created or otherwise produced during the time under study. Primary sources offer an inside view of a particular event. Examples include:
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
Autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage, official records, photographs, raw research data, speeches.
CREATIVE WORKS
Art, drama, films, music, novels, poetry.
RELICS OR ARTIFACTS
Buildings, clothing, DNA, furniture, jewelry, pottery.
EXAMPLES OF PRIMARY SOURCES
    Plato's Republic — women in ancient Greece
    The Declaration of Independence — U. S. history
    African-American Poetry (1750-1900) — U. S. history & literature
    Diary of Anne Frank — experiences of Jews in World War II
    film footage of the assassination of President J. F. Kennedy
    National Security Data Archives — U. S. history ~ declassified documents
    http://knowledgecenter.unr.edu/help/using/primary.aspx
    
 

What is a primary source?
?   A primary source is a document, speech, or other type of evidence created during the time period under study.
?   Primary sources reflect the viewpoint of the participant or observer and offer the researcher an inside view of a particular event.
Types of primary sources:
Primary sources include :
Original documents such as diaries, journals, speeches, interviews, letters, memos, and manuscripts, records of organizations such as minutes, reports, and correspondence, news film footage, newspaper articles, official government records, photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, research data, an eyewitness account.
Creative works such as art, drama, music, novels, and poetry
Relics or artifacts such as physical objects, buildings, clothing, furniture, tools, toys, jewelry, and pottery.
Examples of primary sources:
?   The Bible records Hebrew customs during biblical times  [ this is from a university established by the Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi and even they do not say the bible is primary record of everything it says in it] 
?   Plato's Republic describes individuals in ancient Greece
?   The Declaration of Independence is an artifact fundamental to U.S. History
?   Diary of Anne Frank records experiences of Jews in World War II
?   Film footage of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy
?   Pottery or weavings from Native American Indians
http://library.stritch.edu/research/researchGuides/primary.html

 

[nogodsforme]

What I like best about Palin Jane's last long posting is the part about "god works through man". What a nice exit door for errors, problems, illogical stuff related to Christianity in general and the bible in particular. Any time something does not make sense, well, it's because god could have done it right, but you see, he has to rely on flawed human beings to get things done.

But why does the one true god have to rely on flawed human beings? Why didn't the miracles and events in the bible leave any real records behind? Why only second and third hand oral reports of Jesus? Why would a god leave human salvation up to modern people being able to locate ancient manuscripts and correctly decipher dead languages?

That is the same problem that other religions have--no direct indisputable evidence of anything supernatual or special. All gods work through man. Christianity is no different--that is why most people in the world are not Christians. If it was an easy slam dunk that Jesus was the magical man the bible says he was, then everyone would be able to believe it, just like everyone can believe that other planets exist, or that germs cause disease, once presented with the same evidence.

If the bible was truly the work of an almightly supernatural being, instead of flawed humans acting on their own, that should be pretty easy to show. You should not have to know German or ancient Greek or Latin or Aramaic. You should not have to be a scholar of ANE archaeology. Most people will never have all that specialized knowledge, and they should not need it.

All we need to prove which religion is true is something very simple: copies of the exact same magic book, all dated to the same time period, found by the indigenous people in remote regions of India, Mongolia, Mexico, Senegal, Iceland, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Switzerland and Madagascar.

The magic book would have to be in both the local language spoken by whoever finds it, and in one of the ancient languages of the bible region. A being who can create an entire planet and raise people from the dead should be able to manage the distribution of ten copies of a book.

Here's an even simpler alternative that does not require reading or writing. Widespread knowledge of/belief in Jesus and his teachings in all of those different areas of the world, before any influx of missionaries. 'Cause a god should be able to cross oceans and climb mountains and get into remote forests and deserts. Right?

IMHO, the geographical isolation of religious beliefs, and the subsequent need for missionaries to "bring god's world to the heathen" is the best evidence against an almighty all-knowing supernatural being that there is.

[velkyn]

I am responding to silly, aggressive and foolish diatribes appropriately. It was fun for awhile but I am bored with it now. I will no longer respond to anything but genuine questions from those who might actually be inclined to converse. Unless, of course, I see something so delightfully foolish it would be impossible to resist responding ....

ah, the Christian who decides what "genuine questions" are in a desperate attempt to avoid answering anythign she doesnt' like.   Ah Jane, you are so mundane.  One more Christian who makes baseless claims and lies and can't support them, then runs away by declaring that we aren't worth your wonderful and stellar presence.  Had someone like you on here before, Agent40, and I really couldnt' tell the two of you apart.   

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I also am going to take a stance similar to Jane's.  Some ask good questions so I will focus on these.

[jeremy0]

zer gut, zer gut!!  uber fick lumpen..   

[caveat_imperator]

I also am going to take a stance similar to Jane's.  Some ask good questions so I will focus on these.

Make up your mind; are you going to ignore good questions like Jane is doing or are you going to focus on good questions?

[nogodsforme]

Oh, can I jump in on the "primary source" discussion? I am not a trained historian but I am an academic.

If the NT is a primary source, who witnessed Jesus fasting in the desert and struggling with the devil for 40 days and 40 nights? Wasn't Jesus being alone the main point? So, who wrote up this experience, if not Jesus himself?

If Jesus wrote about it in his diary while it was taking place, it would qualify as a primary source. If he later told someone else about his experience and that someone wrote it up, it is not a primary source. If the NT has parts in it that are not primary sources, the NT itself is disqualified as a primary source. QED

[Alzael]

I also am going to take a stance similar to Jane's.  Some ask good questions so I will focus on these.

But that's not what she's doing though. She's only focusing on the questions she can dodge around. Take my challenge to her. It was a perfectly politely worded and legitimate opportunity for her to display the huge amounts of evidence she claims exist. I even gave her a handicap.

She rudely blew it off. Just as she has everyone else who proved her wrong.

That's the problem with the poseurs like her. They're only really good as intellectual punching bags. You can't actually talk to them.

Trust me, you don't want to follow her example.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Alzael I don't remember having any problems with you.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Oh, can I jump in on the "primary source" discussion? I am not a trained historian but I am an academic.

If the NT is a primary source, who witnessed Jesus fasting in the desert and struggling with the devil for 40 days and 40 nights? Wasn't Jesus being alone the main point? So, who wrote up this experience, if not Jesus himself?

If Jesus wrote about it in his diary while it was taking place, it would qualify as a primary source. If he later told someone else about his experience and that someone wrote it up, it is not a primary source. If the NT has parts in it that are not primary sources, the NT itself is disqualified as a primary source.

Here is what the fine folks at Yale have to say on the subject:

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

This definition is particularly pertinent to ancient history.

But that's not what she's doing though. She's only focusing on the questions she can dodge around.

I am quite tired of your aggressive lies. I answer all honest questions. The fact that someone doesn't like my answer is irrelevant.

Take my challenge to her. It was a perfectly politely worded and legitimate opportunity for her to display the huge amounts of evidence she claims exist. I even gave her a handicap.

No, it was not polite nor was it legitimate. You ruled out of court the primary sources for Jesus. Guess what? I don't run marathons with two broken legs.

She rudely blew it off. Just as she has everyone else who proved her wrong.

No one has come close to proving me wrong about anything. Nor did I blow you off rudely. I said "No thank you". I don't accept your rules. What is rude about that? I hope you are just trying to fool me rather than yourself. When it comes to rude, look in the mirror. So far only Vel has you beat. But that is not a standard worth striving for.

[jaimehlers]

I am responding to silly, aggressive and foolish diatribes appropriately. It was fun for awhile but I am bored with it now. I will no longer respond to anything but genuine questions from those who might actually be inclined to converse. Unless, of course, I see something so delightfully foolish it would be impossible to resist responding ....

So you admit that you were just trolling in those earlier responses, and that you will continue to troll if the mood strikes you.  How very un-scholarly of you.

You know, when I get into a conversation, I don't make pompous, pretentious declarations like the one above.  I just participate in the conversation; I convey myself in a serious fashion.  And you know what?  People take me seriously.  Amazing, that.

[Alzael]

I am quite tired of your aggressive lies. I answer all honest questions. The fact that someone doesn't like my answer is irrelevant.

Where did I lie? You did not respond to my challenge with any kind of propriety, you ignored it as suited your desire to hold to your claims.

No, it was not polite nor was it legitimate. You ruled out of court the primary sources for Jesus. Guess what? I don't run marathons with two broken legs.

I ruled out the bible, which can't be used as evidence because it is the book that makes the claim in the first place (if you were a scholar you would know this).

And I ruled out two sources that are well-known (even by Christian scholars) to be forgeries (again, you should know this). You said you had lots of information and sources. How does ruling out the ones that don't count as legitimate sources anyway hobble you?

No one has come close to proving me wrong about anything. Nor did I blow you off rudely. I said "No thank you". I don't accept your rules. What is rude about that? I hope you are just trying to fool me rather than yourself. When it comes to rude, look in the mirror. So far only Vel has you beat. But that is not a standard worth striving for.

Of course I am being rude. You are an ignorant fool and an absolute liar (worse not even a good liar). You deserve far less respect than I have shown to you so far. You're an insult to legitimate scholarhsip. The fact that you ignorantly try to portray yourself as belonging to that group I find extremely offensive. You're merely a pathetic lair and a troll who's too uneducated to even properly portray herself falsely as an intellectual person.

But I did not start out being rude. Only once you showed me what you really were.

[Asmoday]

Here is what the fine folks at Yale have to say on the subject:

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.

This definition is particularly pertinent to ancient history.

Nobody has been saying anything else, except for you. Because just like all other pages that have been brought forth, it shows that your definition of a primal source in regards to the NT is wrong. The gospels do not qualify.

[jeremy0]

Jane, you didn't read my account on wikipedia on the historical origins of the gospels.. otherwise you would have found out for yourself that they are indeed not primary accounts or sources..

[Omen]

Why doesn't Paul ( the assumed earliest christian writer )  know the details claimed in the gospels of the passion narrative?

What makes you think that he doesn't?

He couldn't be bothered to tell anyone them while he was evangelizing.  Why would that be the case?

What is the use of talking of Jesus being historical if the theologically necessary events in the old testament are all mythology?

Who said that the "theologically necessary events in the OT are all mythology? I certainly didn't.

I assumed, cause earlier you claimed that scholarly literature was reliable.  If scholarly literature was reliable and you have read it, than it should really come as no surprise to yourself that much of biblical historicity prior to the 10th century BCE is entirely rejected and the only serious question about the historical claims in the old testament remaining are those that span the period between the 8th century BCE and the 10th century BCE.

I'll just go off the basis that you don't actually have any clue what you're talking about.

The 19th century was marked by a fad industry of biblical archaeology, where self proclaimed archaeologist scoured the middle east claiming every spec of sand to be biblical, historical, and reliable.  Yet, that has slowly changed over the past one hundred years.  Much of those claims have not born out their own conclusions based on evidence, were missing evidence entirely, or were contracted by actual evidence on the ground.   The real 'brunt' of biblical archaeology began with William F Albright, which he was much praised in his period for doing so and concluded upon many studies/findings that served to build the formalized basis of what would be at least in name a 'scientific' attempt at biblical archaeology.  However, since his reign in creating the field his own ideas and notions regarding biblical history have been mostly overturned.  The actual science of archaeology as it has developed has steadily overturned the assumption of biblical historicity since it first began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright#Influence_and_legacy

Modern biblical historical study involves trying to establish what is reliable to be believed using normal historical methods by finding correlating points of evidential data from other civilizations, the archaeological record, and other interrelated conclusions.   There has been tons of work dedicated to this pursuit and the findings have been eye opening in the long run.  For example, when examining the archaeological record prior to the 10th century BCE we don't really have much to go on that agrees with biblical claims.  Egypt occupied much of the territory in which a supposed army of hebrew slaves fled too, as well as the fact that that land was already occupied by nomadic groups that themselves never saw fit to mention the hebrews, we also have to contend with the reality of there being records made by civilizations that took note of events that the bible doesn't even know about ( such as the invasions of the sea peoples ).  Many cities destroyed in this period, which are often claimed by evangelical christians as examples of events in the bible rarely coincide with biblical chronology and are often separated by hundreds of years apart or abandoned long before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egypt_NK_edit.svg  *egypts regional influence in the 15th century BCE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

*The Sea Peoples were not a 'singular' group, but multiple groups invading over a period lasting most of the 2nd millennia BCE

The actual archaeological evidence that does coincide with the bible begins to appear in the 8th century BCE onward, strengthening into a strong correlation and relationship in the 6th century BCE under the rule of King Josiah.  Much of the period before the 8th century BCE is in dispute because we don't find what we would expect to find from a bible that claims an overarching Judaic empire spanning an entire region.  We don't have a huge empire or even a city for a King David to rule, just small settlements consisting of a single 'building' with mud walls 3-4 ft high that had a grass or thatch roof.  This dispute is often characterized as being a disagreement between biblical maximalist and biblical minimalist, but the groups themselves don't fall into this kind of polemical categorization.  The actual notion of biblical maximalism and minimalism is more widely used in fringe evangelical camps than it is for other scholars.  You will find more evangelical christians who are staunch biblical maximalist than you can find minimalist that fit such divisive positions.  The scholarly positions amongst minimalist run the gambit of differing ideas from both believers and non-believers.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

What a bunch of irrelevant nonsense all the above is! Here is an idea.  Find me any scholarly work (really, any reasonably serious work) on the subject of Jesus's life and mission that does not begin and end with the New Testament and the Gospels. Can you do it? If not, what does that tell you about the sources of our information? Does it help explain why you get 610 book results just searching the catalog of the Library of Congress all of which take the New Testament as the starting point? You will find such books as:

Personal name: Aus, Roger David, 1940- 
Main title: Feeding the five thousand : studies in the Judaic background of Mark 6:30-44 par. and John 6:1-15 / Roger David Aus.
Published/Created: Lanham, Md. : University Press of America, c2010.
Description: xvii, 187 p. ; 23 cm.

Personal name: Miller, Stephen M., 1952- 
Main title: The Jesus of the Bible / Stephen M. Miller.
Published/Created: Uhrichsville, Ohio : Barbour Pub., c2009.
Description: 379 p. : ill. (chiefly col.), col. maps ; 23 cm.

Keener, Craig S., 1960- 
Main title: The historical Jesus of the Gospels / Craig S. Keener.
Published/Created: Grand Rapids, Mich. : William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2009.
Description: xxxviii, 831 p. ; 25 cm.

Farmer, William Reuben.
Main title: Jesus and the gospel : tradition, Scripture, and canon / William R. Farmer.
Published/Created: Philadelphia : Fortress Press, c1982.
Description: xiv, 300 p. ; 24 cm.

McCormick, Scott, 1929- 
Main title: Behold the man : re-reading Gospels, re-humanizing Jesus / Scott McCormick, Jr.
Published/Created: New York : Continuum, 1994.
Description: 216 p. ; 23 cm.

Here is one that should be of particular interest to some of you:

Finding the historical Jesus : rules of evidence / Bernard Brandon Scott, editor.
Published/Created: Santa Rosa, Calif. : Polebridge Press, c2008.
Description: xi, 93 p. ; 21 cm.
ISBN: 9781598150070 (alk. paper)
Links: Table of contents only

Even the debunkers start and stop with the Gospels!

The five Gospels : the search for the authentic words of Jesus : new translation and commentary / [edited] by Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar.
Published/Created: New York : Macmillan ; Toronto : Maxwell Macmillan Canada ; New York : Maxwell Macmillan International, c1993.
Description: xxii, 553 p. : ill., map ; 25 cm.


Now this has been an amusing but complete waste of my time, since it is unlikely that those of you who most need to understand what you don't know  are also the ones who think they know it all. But hope springs eternal.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

Why doesn't Paul ( the assumed earliest christian writer )  know the details claimed in the gospels of the passion narrative?

What makes you think that he doesn't?

He couldn't be bothered to tell anyone them while he was evangelizing.  Why would that be the case?

Go back and read the post. I explained it there. One sentence after the one you quoted, if memory serves.

What is the use of talking of Jesus being historical if the theologically necessary events in the old testament are all mythology?

Who said that the "theologically necessary events in the OT are all mythology? I certainly didn't.

I assumed, cause earlier you claimed that scholarly literature was reliable.

When you assume, you make an ass out of u.

Albright is not taken seriously anymore. Archaeology has been a constant source of supporting evidence for what the Bible says. But I have come to realize that God and 40 of his angels descending upon the forum correcting your misunderstandings would be met with derision. You all are wedded to what you want to believe and I am content to leave you to it.

[HAL]

Now this has been an amusing but complete waste of my time, since it is unlikely that those of you who most need to understand what you don't know  are also the ones who think they know it all. But hope springs eternal.

The best way to settle this is with unbiased historical facts. I suggest each side stop the snide remarks and continue with the facts.

[Omen]

He couldn't be bothered to tell anyone them while he was evangelizing.  Why would that be the case?

Go back and read the post. I explained it there. One sentence after the one you quoted, if memory serves.

You're equivocating, no other sentence addresses the question.  Which one do you believe does?

I assumed, cause earlier you claimed that scholarly literature was reliable.

Albright is not taken seriously anymore. Archaeology has been a constant source of supporting evidence for what the Bible says. But I have come to realize that God and 40 of his angels descending upon the forum correcting your misunderstandings would be met with derision. You all are wedded to what you want to believe and I am content to leave you to it.

Your answer makes absolutely no sense.

Albright would have been the biblical archaeologist claiming that the bible is supported by archaeology, so you're discrediting the man as if you either didn't understand what I stated or believed him to be associated with discrediting biblical claims.  You also didn't address anything in my post, you omitted 99% of it and made a dismissive response in the total ignorance of anything/everything I said.

This also begs the question, WHAT archaeological evidence do you believe exists that supports the biblical claims of history prior to the 8th century BCE?

[Omen]

What a bunch of irrelevant nonsense all the above is! Here is an idea.  Find me any scholarly work

Most of the books below are not 'scholarly' work.  They are not submitted to historical journals for peer review analysis and are instead published outside the normal peer review process, their target audience is clearly outside the spectrum of academic scholarship.

(really, any reasonably serious work) on the subject of Jesus's life and mission that does not begin and end with the New Testament and the Gospels. Can you do it?

This is a pointless qualification, very little outside of the bible exists to even correlate to Jesus being existent much less build a constructive descriptive basis.

If not, what does that tell you about the sources of our information? Does it help explain why you get 610 book results just searching the catalog of the Library of Congress all of which take the New Testament as the starting point? You will find such books as:

The Library of Congress receives on average 22,000 publications a day and keeps slightly over half of them.  You can find tons of stuff in the Library of Congress; good or bad, false or true, etc.

Now this has been an amusing but complete waste of my time, since it is unlikely that those of you who most need to understand what you don't know  are also the ones who think they know it all. But hope springs eternal.

The condescending attitude, the dismissive arrogance, and tendency to not address posts is not becoming of you.  It subtracts from your assumed credibility, regardless if you care what we think or not.

[jeremy0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_History
Again, wikipedia is a very reliable source of information on a handful of topics, although it is usually summarized and not taken into fine detail.  However, it serves as a good starting point for any research on the internet..

It is now recognised that Rabbinical Judaism and Early Christianity are only two of the many strands which survived until the Jewish revolt of 66 to 70 CE,[44][45] see also Split of early Christianity and Judaism.

Most modern scholars hold that the canonical Gospel accounts were written between 70 and 100 or 110 CE,[46] four to eight decades after the crucifixion, although based on earlier traditions and texts, such as "Q", Logia or sayings gospels, the passion account or other earlier literature (See List of Gospels). Some scholars argue that these accounts were compiled by witnesses[47] although this view is disputed by other scholars.[48] There are also secular references to Jesus, although they are few and quite late. Almost all historical critics agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans possibly for insurrection.[49]

Many scholars have pointed out, that the Gospel of Mark shows signs of a lack of knowledge of geographical, political and religious matters in Palestine in the time of Jesus. Thus, today the most common opinion is, that the author is unknown and both geographically and historically at a distance to the narrated events[50][51][52][53] although opinion varies and scholars such as Craig Blomberg accept the more traditional view.[54] The use of expressions that may be described as awkward and rustic cause the Gospel of Mark to appear somewhat unlettered or even crude.[55] This may be attributed to the influence that Saint Peter, a fisherman, is suggested to have on the writing of Mark.[56] The writers of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke used Mark as a source, with changes and improvement to peculiarities and crudities in Mark.[55]

The absence of evidence of Jesus' life before his meeting with John the Baptist has led to many speculations. It would seem that part of the explanation may lie in the early conflict between Paul and the Desposyni Ebionim, led by James the Just, supposedly the brother of Jesus, that led to Gospel passages critical of Jesus' family[57]

The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the primary source for the Apostolic Age, is a major issue for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity.

While some biblical scholars view the Book of Acts as being extremely accurate and corroborated by archaeology, others view the work as being inaccurate and in conflict with the Pauline epistles. Acts portrays Paul as more inline with Jewish Christianity, while the Pauline epistles record more conflict, such as the Incident at Antioch, see also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism.

There are three loosely defined historical schools of thought with regard to the historical accuracy of the Bible,

    biblical minimalism — which holds the primacy of modern archaeological evidence, and maintains the theology and apology, and all stories within it are of a later aetiological character
    biblical maximalism — which holds that also the historical accounts of the Exodus, Judges and United Monarchy, king David and king Saul, are to be taken as largely accurate
    non-historical method of reading the Bible; the traditional religious reading of the Bible independent of archaeological evidence, assuming it to be accurate.

Note that historical opinions fall on a spectrum, rather than into tightly defined camps. Since there is a wide range of opinions regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible, it should not be surprising that any given scholar may have views that fall anywhere between these loosely defined camps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

The gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities, [2] that were later translated into Syriac, Latin and Coptic. [3]

The Gospel of Mark, believed to be the first written of the four gospels, narrates the Baptism of Jesus, his preaching, and the Crucifixion of Jesus. Matthew and Luke follow Mark's narrative, with some changes, and add substantial amounts of Jesus' ethical teaching, such as The Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain. The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels. Acts of the Apostles narrates the events of the Apostolic Age, from the resurrection of Jesus around 33 AD to the arrival of Paul the Apostle in Rome around 62 AD. The canonical gospels, overall, are considered to have more historically authentic content than the various non-canonical gospels. The synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are considered more historically reliable than John.

Mark:

Most scholars believe that Mark was written around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70.

Matthew:

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[61] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[61] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[62]

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.

Luke:

Some scholars date the Gospel of Luke to c. 80-90,[70][71] although others argue for a date c. 60-65.[72]

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author.[73] The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces were addressed to Theophilus, and Acts of the Apostles (1:1-2) says in reference to the Gospel of Luke, "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day He was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles He had chosen." (NIV) Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author.[74][75] Both books also contain common interests.[76] The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the first century. Given that, therefore, Luke was written by the same person who wrote Acts, and that Acts must have been written in the early 60s AD (the book ends before the death of Paul, which most probably occurred during the Persecution of the Christians under Nero between AD 64 and AD 68), it would seem that Luke was written around AD 60. [77][78][79][80]

John:

In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[81][82] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[83] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[84][85]

Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.

Jane:
I was providing these snippets of information because I figured you would not follow my links, as you had done before.  I believe this to be the information relevant to this discussion, which actually backs up a small portion of your claims and most all of Omen's claims...

Please be intelligent and link your sources to a reliable source, such as wikipedia and not some pastor, and we'll see who has the winning argument between the two of you here in this thread.

-later,