这篇拙作是抄自 Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus.Sheffield Phoenix Press Ltd (2014)
反驳早有 我去搜寻一下,大把人早已反驳。见:
「 On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014) by Richard Carrier 」(http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/ReviewCarrierOnHistoricity.htm)
还有:
「 On the Historicity of Jesus: The Daniel Gullotta Review」(https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13573)说:「歷史學家需要認真對待邏輯。 並且停止使用不合邏輯的論據來得出他們想要的結論,而是使用邏輯(並且勝任地)來確定他們的信念何時是錯誤的。 因為只是因為沒有證明你的信仰是錯誤的,所以你可以證明他們可能是真的。 在這一點上看到我過去的建議。 此外,對於古洛塔和所有可能的批評者:請實際閱讀這本書。 這很尷尬,浪費時間............」( Historians need to start taking logic seriously. And stop using illogical arguments to reach conclusions they desire, and instead use logic (and competently) to identify when their beliefs are false. Because it is only by failing to prove your beliefs false, that you can verify they are probably true. See my past advice on this point. Plus, to Gullotta and all would-be critics: Please actually read the book. It’s embarrassing, and a waste of time ………… )
此外,这本“On the Historicity of Jesus“ 不是耶稣有哥哥,所以是小弟,而是怀疑耶稣的历史性。
阿默读书真有问题,他读过这本书吗?只会拾人牙慧。羞羞虚!!!
至於耶稣的历史性,大把书:
「The Historicity of Jesus: A Criticism of the Contention That Jesus Never Lived, a Statement of the Evidence for His Existence, an Estimate of His Relation to Christianity (Classic Reprint) 」Shirley Jackson Case(https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Criticism-Contention-Christianity/dp/1330182677/ref=sr_1_2?crid=32JK1V61IHGXU&keywords=historicity+of+jesus&qid=1552765821&s=books&sprefix=historicity%2Cstripbooks%2C200&sr=1-2 )
「He Walked Among Us」Josh McDowell(https://www.amazon.com/He-Walked-Among-Josh-McDowell/dp/0898402301/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=he+walked+among+us&qid=1552765952&s=books&sr=1-1)
「The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ 」Gary R. Habermas(https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Ancient-Evidence-Christ/dp/0899007325/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+historical+jesus%2C+ancient+evidence&qid=1552766072&s=books&sr=1-1 )
今天的學者中,韋爾斯(G.A.Wells)是這方面的代表,他在 《耶穌曾經存在過嗎?》(Did Jesus Exist?)一書,大力質疑耶穌是一個歷史人物。韋爾斯列舉了很多自由派神學家的言論作為支持。他質疑聖經的可信性,他尤其喜歡說,保羅所認識的耶穌並非四福音的耶穌。他的邏輯是﹕由於聖經不可信,有矛盾,所以證明耶穌只是一個神話人物,是基督徒事後創造和虛構的。
今天不少非基督徒學者也同意耶穌是歷史人物。例如,英國作家韋義仁(Ian Wilson)寫了一本書,叫《耶穌﹕證據》(Jesus: The Evidence),顧名思義,他認為有證據可以證明耶穌曾經存在於歷史中。雖然他對耶穌和聖經的觀點絕不正統,甚至近乎褻瀆,但他列舉聖經證據、次經證據,然後結論說﹕「我們沒有理由懷疑祂的歷史性……所以韋爾斯教授是錯的。」[i]
一本現代猶太人出版的《猶太宗教百科全書》(The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion)表示,新約不可信、《猶太法典》和《猶太古史》的語錄都可疑,「然而,沒有理由懷疑耶穌的存在,他曾經和法利賽人衝突,顯然對權威忿恨,要從律法中爭取自由……」[v]
(五)結論
二千年來,數之不盡的書籍皆異口同聲見證耶穌的存在。如果硬要說耶穌不是歷史人物,那只是顯得頑固。
[i] Ian Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 65.[ii] Talmud Sanhedrin 43a (http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html)[iii] 麥道衛,韓偉等譯,《鐵證待判》(台北﹕更新傳道會,1978),頁112。[iv] Paul L. Maier, trans. & ed., Josephus: The Essential Writings (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1988), p. 264-65.[v] R. J. Zwi & Werblowsky, Geoffrey Wigoder, eds., The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1966), p. 211.
非常可惜,阿哈默辛辛苦苦写了一大堆废话,没有列举任何例子。我只有自己去找有没有这样的例子。我在维基找到「The concept of resurrection is found in the writings of some ancient non-Abrahamic religions in the Middle East. A few extant Egyptian and Canaanitewritings allude to dying and rising gods such as Osiris and Baal. …… 」(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection)