[Buddha-l] it's not about belief

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Stephen Hodge wrote:

> Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
>
> > There is also Josephus and his "Testimonium Flavianum".  Here is an
> > interesting URL:
>
> The problem is that most objective scholars accept that this is a spurious
> addition.  Dig around the internet and you should find the details.

Yes, I've noted that some scholars do not accept this as authentic.  Does
that therefore make them "objective".  What of the "objective" scholars
who do accept the piece's authenticity?  Josephus aside, I find it
interesting that in the article the existence of Jesus comes under
question simply on the grounds that his existence is purported to be noted
in the Gospels and tangentially by two pagan historians.  The Gospels are
immediately placed under a hermeneutic of suspicion because they are
accepted by a faith community; and the Roman historians valorized because
they do not write first hand information.  By these standards one could
doubt the existence of Socrates, Hui Neng, and other luminaries.  There
are other non-Christian credible sources that testify to the existence of
Jesus, paramount among them the Jewish Talmud and other writings.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro