Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86, Matt8819, amok

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24341  Postby Byron » May 03, 2012 5:23 pm

archibald wrote:
Byron wrote:
The only thing that matters for MJ advocates is producing a MJ scenario that better fits the evidence than HJ. This they consistently fail to do: even Carrier, by far the best MJ has got, is reduced to fragmented pedantry and nitpicking.

It's arguably irrelevant, certainly to me, what the alternative scenario is, especially with the time being so distant and murky. All that is needed is to describe it as 'one of the many varied ways in which people who did/do not exist were/are nonetheless taken by many to have existed'. In short,at least for the undecided, the case for HJ rests on the evidence for HJ, not the evidence for MJ. The evidence for HJ is such that if it were applied to any other figure whatsoever, I cannot honestly see how anybody could describe it as anything other than very weak.

And this is where your case slams into the buffers. MJ doesn't exist in isolation: as it's in competition with HJ, it needs to present a positive case that's more convincing than the HJ alternative. It's no wonder that many JM supporters are reluctant to do this, 'cause the results are either Acharya S new age baloney, or Earl Doherty pesudo-scholarship.

It's so much easier to be against something than for something, isn't it?

Oh, and which Hoffman cite of mine are you referring to? Point it out and (due to my total lack of interest) I'll withdraw it.
"Despising, for you, the city, thus I turn my back: there is a world elsewhere."

Coriolanus, Coriolanus

Ms. Lovelace © Ms. Padua, resident of 2D Goggles
User avatar
Byron
 
Posts: 9224
Male

Country: Albion
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24342  Postby archibald » May 03, 2012 9:27 pm

Byron wrote:
And this is where your case slams into the buffers.


If you think that, then I think it's fairly safe for me to conclude that this is what you think. Pardon me for not noticing the jolt. :)

Byron wrote: Oh, and which Hoffman cite of mine are you referring to? Point it out and (due to my total lack of interest) I'll withdraw it.


Did I refer to a Hoffmann cite of yours?


I think I might have noted that you said Carrier was inconsistent, didn't back it up, and seemed to ignore commenting on Hoffman when he was inconsistent (in a different way). So, lucky you, you don't have to withdraw anything.
'I like a good old fashion snog. Don't mind a shag as well.'
Scot Dutchy

"No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
Henry Kissinger
archibald
 
Posts: 6202

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24343  Postby archibald » May 03, 2012 10:38 pm

'First, why does Jude call himself “the brother of James” rather than “the brother of Jesus”? As Bauckham points out, “Palestinian Jewish-Christian circles in the early church used the title ‘brother of the Lord’ not simply to identify the brothers, but as ascribing to them an authoritative status, and therefore the brothers themselves, not wishing to claim an authority based on mere blood-relationship to Jesus, avoided the term.”5 Such restraint would especially be appropriate if one were writing to Gentiles,6 for Gentilic entrance into a covenant relationship with Israel’s God was now, for the first time, not based on proselytization (in which circumcision would be required), but simply faith. Thus, the very self-identification which opens this epistle not only indicates humility on Jude’s part, but also speaks of authenticity.'

http://bible.org/seriespage/jude-introd ... nd-outline

Daniel B Wallace, who I think I may refer to as an 'Academy scholar', on why the writer of Jude is likely to be the authentic brother of Jesus. Really, I think we can say that the methodology here is of the highest order. It is in favour of the writer of this being the actual brother of Jesus precisely because he doesn't say so.

Incidentally, the chap Bauckham he refers to is also what we might call a fully paid up academy member, and this is how his methodology works:

'While James assumed pre-eminent leadership at the centre of the Christian movement, the other brothers of Jesus worked as travelling missionaries. We know this from an incidental, but revealing, reference to them by Paul. In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul maintains that, although he has waived his right as an apostle to be supported by his converts at Corinth, he has this right, just as much as the other apostles do. It was an accepted principle in the early Christian movement that travelling missionaries had a right to food and hospitality from the Christian communities among whom they worked. Evidently, wives who accompanied their husbands on missionary travels also had this right. Paul attributes both the right to support and the right to be accompanied by a wife to 'the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas' (1 Cor. 9:5). In instancing, among the apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas (Peter), Paul intends to associate himself with people whose claim to apostleship and its rights was unquestioned and unquestionable. The Lord's brothers must have been so well known as travelling missionaries that they, along with Peter, were the obvious examples for Paul to choose, even when speaking to the Christians in Corinth.'

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/artic ... ckham.html

Here, a complete lack of any decent evidence that Jesus' brothers were famous travelling missionaries is neatly set aside in favour of some time travel mind reading. Very impressive, not least beause, quite the opposite of the reasoning of the first guy (Wallace, who says that 'the brothers themselves, not wishing to claim an authority based on mere blood-relationship to Jesus, avoided the term'), Bauckham rests his case on the opposite idea that their siblinghood status was so well known to the converts in Corinth, that they didn't need to be introduced. :ask:
'I like a good old fashion snog. Don't mind a shag as well.'
Scot Dutchy

"No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
Henry Kissinger
archibald
 
Posts: 6202

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24344  Postby Byron » May 03, 2012 11:15 pm

archibald wrote:Did I refer to a Hoffmann cite of yours?

archibald wrote:
Byron wrote:Just like Hoffmann. I couldn't give a rat's ass what he did or didn't believe. This isn't authority top trumps.


?

You're citing Hoffmann, and yet.....so far you haven't made any comment on what he said in response to Carrier, even though the former has been demonstrably inconsistent and the latter...well, we still await your citation.

More to the point, you haven't commented on what Hoffman apparently said in 2009.

You see Byron, that's my problem with you. You can't admit it's reasonable to doubt because, well, I don't know what your reasons are. For you the alternative has to be, essentially, untenable. Anyone with half a brain can see that that isn't the case. People like Willhud and Ignorantia and MS2 and many others who end us favouring HJ nonetheless. To me, you're in the same category as 'myther scum' stein, who appears so attached to the idea that it upsets him if anyone takes a contra view.

So either yes, or work on your posts' clarity. As you like.

Perhaps you can detail where & how my approach differs from those other folks you list. So we know that this is something more than divide and irritate.
"Despising, for you, the city, thus I turn my back: there is a world elsewhere."

Coriolanus, Coriolanus

Ms. Lovelace © Ms. Padua, resident of 2D Goggles
User avatar
Byron
 
Posts: 9224
Male

Country: Albion
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24345  Postby proudfootz » May 04, 2012 1:33 am

archibald wrote:'First, why does Jude call himself “the brother of James” rather than “the brother of Jesus”? As Bauckham points out, “Palestinian Jewish-Christian circles in the early church used the title ‘brother of the Lord’ not simply to identify the brothers, but as ascribing to them an authoritative status, and therefore the brothers themselves, not wishing to claim an authority based on mere blood-relationship to Jesus, avoided the term.”5 Such restraint would especially be appropriate if one were writing to Gentiles,6 for Gentilic entrance into a covenant relationship with Israel’s God was now, for the first time, not based on proselytization (in which circumcision would be required), but simply faith. Thus, the very self-identification which opens this epistle not only indicates humility on Jude’s part, but also speaks of authenticity.'

http://bible.org/seriespage/jude-introd ... nd-outline

Daniel B Wallace, who I think I may refer to as an 'Academy scholar', on why the writer of Jude is likely to be the authentic brother of Jesus. Really, I think we can say that the methodology here is of the highest order. It is in favour of the writer of this being the actual brother of Jesus precisely because he doesn't say so.

Incidentally, the chap Bauckham he refers to is also what we might call a fully paid up academy member, and this is how his methodology works:

'While James assumed pre-eminent leadership at the centre of the Christian movement, the other brothers of Jesus worked as travelling missionaries. We know this from an incidental, but revealing, reference to them by Paul. In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul maintains that, although he has waived his right as an apostle to be supported by his converts at Corinth, he has this right, just as much as the other apostles do. It was an accepted principle in the early Christian movement that travelling missionaries had a right to food and hospitality from the Christian communities among whom they worked. Evidently, wives who accompanied their husbands on missionary travels also had this right. Paul attributes both the right to support and the right to be accompanied by a wife to 'the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas' (1 Cor. 9:5). In instancing, among the apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas (Peter), Paul intends to associate himself with people whose claim to apostleship and its rights was unquestioned and unquestionable. The Lord's brothers must have been so well known as travelling missionaries that they, along with Peter, were the obvious examples for Paul to choose, even when speaking to the Christians in Corinth.'

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/artic ... ckham.html

Here, a complete lack of any decent evidence that Jesus' brothers were famous travelling missionaries is neatly set aside in favour of some time travel mind reading. Very impressive, not least beause, quite the opposite of the reasoning of the first guy (Wallace, who says that 'the brothers themselves, not wishing to claim an authority based on mere blood-relationship to Jesus, avoided the term'), Bauckham rests his case on the opposite idea that their siblinghood status was so well known to the converts in Corinth, that they didn't need to be introduced. :ask:


I guess it doesn't matter if the methodology of bible students gets diametrically opposite results from the same 'evidence' so long as the bible is upheld as history.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4389

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24346  Postby proudfootz » May 04, 2012 1:37 am

Naturally the various HJ hypotheses are not only in competition with each other and the various MJ hypotheses, they are also in competition with the null hypothesis.

AFAICT no MJ or HJ theory has been able to make an unquestionable case because of the nature of the evidence.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4389

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24347  Postby Corky » May 04, 2012 3:25 am

proudfootz wrote:Naturally the various HJ hypotheses are not only in competition with each other and the various MJ hypotheses, they are also in competition with the null hypothesis.

AFAICT no MJ or HJ theory has been able to make an unquestionable case because of the nature of the evidence.

See, the trick is you have to understand the bible and HJers understand it better than the other 38,000 sects of Xianity.
Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
User avatar
Corky
 
Posts: 1518
Age: 67
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24348  Postby archibald » May 04, 2012 7:16 am

Byron wrote:
So either yes, or work on your posts' clarity. As you like.


I meant 'cite' as in 'mention' not as in 'quote', Byers. Now that that's cleared up, I wonder if I can expect any comment of substance on the matter. Can you explain how a man could go from saying that the question of historicity is unanswerable in 2009 to saying that mythicists are nutters in 2012.

Byron wrote:Perhaps you can detail where & how my approach differs from those other folks you list. So we know that this is something more than divide and irritate.


No, you're right. I can't detail it. It wasn't just an honest comment on your apparent need to trash your non-preferred view. I was employing a divide and irritate strategy, as you correctly infer. You caught me red handed there. Sheesh, I slammed into the buffers on that non-starter.
'I like a good old fashion snog. Don't mind a shag as well.'
Scot Dutchy

"No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
Henry Kissinger
archibald
 
Posts: 6202

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24349  Postby archibald » May 04, 2012 8:21 am

proudfootz wrote:

I guess it doesn't matter if the methodology of bible students gets diametrically opposite results from the same 'evidence' so long as the bible is upheld as history.


It gets better the more you delve. Bauckham's main piece of evidence regarding the brothers who were travelling missionaries (other than his own interpretation of 1 Cor 9:5) is a corroboration (using the term loosely) from a guy called Julius Africanus, via Eusebius I believe, even though Africanus is late on the scene by about 150 years at least.

Here is the passage. It is worth noting that it comes just after some rather dubious geneaology and just before an account of happenings in Persia at the time of the birth of Christ (falling stars, the usual stuff):

'Herod, knowing that the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to him, and goaded by the consciousness of his ignoble birth, burned the registers of their families. This he did, thinking that he would appear to be of noble birth, if no one else could trace back his descent by the public register to the patriarchs or proselytes, and to that mixed race called georae. A few, however, of the studious, having private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting at them in some other way from the archives, pride themselves in preserving the memory of their noble descent; and among these happen to be those already mentioned, called desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. And these coming from Nazara and Cochaba, Judean villages, to other parts of the country, set forth the above-named genealogy as accurately as possible from the Book of Days. Whether, then, the case stand thus or not, no one could discover a more obvious explanation, according to my own opinion and that of any sound judge. And let this suffice us for the matter, although it is not supported by testimony, because we have nothing more satisfactory or true to allege upon it. The Gospel, however, in any case states the truth.'

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0614.htm Chapter v.

Well that settles that then. Clear reference to siblings as travelling missionaries. Minus any clear reference to siblings or missionaries or travelling. And one can only note what thoroughly balanced and rational apologetics underpinned the growth of the early cult. When something isn't supported by testimony, believe it anyway.

And so, using this same methodology, I feel warranted to say that the reason these supposed siblings don't appear on Paul's list of witnesses to the risen Jesus starts to crystallize. Obviously, Paul was happy to mention one sibling, but mentioning more than one would have been seen as over-doing it, when addressing gentiles. Kind of a Bauckham-Wallace compromise position if you like.
Last edited by archibald on May 04, 2012 8:59 am, edited 3 times in total.
'I like a good old fashion snog. Don't mind a shag as well.'
Scot Dutchy

"No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
Henry Kissinger
archibald
 
Posts: 6202

Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24350  Postby Mus Ponticus » May 04, 2012 8:26 am

Byron wrote:And this is where your case slams into the buffers. MJ doesn't exist in isolation: as it's in competition with HJ, it needs to present a positive case that's more convincing than the HJ alternative.
"More convincing"? Seems like you want to use a methodology that is based on subjective evaluation of the evidence! Do you want mythicists to use "crap methodology"? ;)
User avatar
Mus Ponticus
 
Posts: 137

Iceland (is)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24351  Postby angelo » May 04, 2012 8:55 am

Aren't the HJ using "crap methodology? "
User avatar
angelo
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20313
Age: 66
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24352  Postby proudfootz » May 04, 2012 12:11 pm

Doherty continues his series evaluating Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?.

COVERED IN THIS POST:

Those “sources” of the Gospels
    How obvious?
    Downplaying what scholarship knows
    Enter Q with a cardboard cutout Jesus
    Oral tradition hypothesis fails the prediction test
    How one story became four
    Luke’s and Matthew’s special sources
      “You can’t be serious!”
      Hiding and hoping?
    Insupportable claims for Mark and John
      John’s sources were unique . . . the problem
    Evolution of Jesus
    Who invented Jesus?



A sample below:

The Oral Tradition hypothesis fails the prediction test

I have touched on this situation earlier. If, as part of a large and notably uncoordinated (the record itself shows this) sectarian movement of the time, Luke’s or Matthew’s community owed its origins to oral traditions about Jesus’ life and death, each would inevitably have formulated its own version of that life and death, its own focuses on features of the Jesus story and how to preserve and tell it. There is also no reason to think that each community would not have created its own written account of that story, with all those unique focuses and literary renditions. (Why should Mark’s community alone have come up with such an idea, impulse or need?) Yet neither Luke nor Matthew presents any such different, let alone unique, foundational version. Each simply took Mark as his starting point, his blueprint, as though he had never known a story, oral or written, about a life of Jesus before he encountered a copy of Mark. And to have two separate evangelists (and John partially) present such a picture, such a virtually infeasible situation in their literary creations, confirms this insight.

How one story became four

What we have here is the opposite of what Ehrman is trying to claim. Mythicists are indeed right. The four Gospels, inasmuch as they purport to tell the story of a man on earth who preached, prophesied, worked miracles and underwent a death and resurrection, are simply one story with differing incidental details and organization. Once that story materialized in the sect’s mind, it would inevitably have been expanded. How? By pulling into its orbit all manner of teachings, prophetic pronouncements, anecdotes about miracles performed by the sect’s prophets, controversies with the establishment, etc., and attaching them to the newly formulated Jesus figure. Some of this took place in Q’s evolution, some of it in the creation of the Gospels.

New Testament scholarship has long recognized this process, this wholesale adoption of Jesus and the attribution to him of disparate elements from truly independent (non-Jesus) sources. What they have not recognized is that this Jesus is an entirely fabricated figure, partly imagined by the sect through common sectarian tendencies, partly utilized by Mark to fashion an allegorical story about the sect as a whole and its new spiritual truths. Those truths also encompassed the entirely separate cultic Christ sect as preached by Paul, with Mark bringing Christ’s heavenly sacrifice to earth and allegorizing it in a tale of crucifixion by Pontius Pilate with the connivance of the Jewish authorities. Syncretism in spades!

<the full post can be read at the link below>

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/ ... e-gospels/
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4389

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24353  Postby proudfootz » May 04, 2012 12:23 pm

Corky wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Naturally the various HJ hypotheses are not only in competition with each other and the various MJ hypotheses, they are also in competition with the null hypothesis.

AFAICT no MJ or HJ theory has been able to make an unquestionable case because of the nature of the evidence.

See, the trick is you have to understand the bible and HJers understand it better than the other 38,000 sects of Xianity.


While the HJ community is not necessarily a christian cult, it is an interesting parallel that the early christians believed they understood jewish scripture better than the jews. The 'good news' about Jesus was hidden from the jews in scripture and finally revealed to people like Paul.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4389

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24354  Postby Cito di Pense » May 04, 2012 1:41 pm

proudfootz wrote:it is an interesting parallel that the early christians believed they understood jewish scripture better than the jews.


You know how it went with the goat-roasters. They probably thought they understood many things a lot better than they really did. This problem continues apace, albeit about somewhat fewer matters.

The whole point of scripture, I think, is its capacity to make you think you understand more than you really do. Scriptural amendments to scripture are sufficient evidence of that; after that, scripture begins to constitute an interpretation of itself. Whoever decided that no further amendments should be made to the xian bible was a fricking genius. Now all the amendments are extracurricular, as it were, including the Book of Mormon. Hence the 38000 varieties of Heinz catsup.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Milt Roe
Posts: 19944
Age: 100
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24355  Postby proudfootz » May 04, 2012 10:09 pm

For those concerned about malware:

Religious Websites Are Worse for Your Computer than Porn Sites

"I have a virus." "Stop visiting all those porn sites!" Ha. Ha. But also pretty much every conversation about malware ever, right? Well, Symantec's 17th Internet Threat Security Report found another genre of sites that, on average is worse than porn: Religion.

Religious sites had and average of 115 software threats, while porn sites only had 25...

http://gizmodo.com/5907388/religious-we ... porn-sites
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 4389

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24356  Postby Corky » May 04, 2012 11:13 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Corky wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Naturally the various HJ hypotheses are not only in competition with each other and the various MJ hypotheses, they are also in competition with the null hypothesis.

AFAICT no MJ or HJ theory has been able to make an unquestionable case because of the nature of the evidence.

See, the trick is you have to understand the bible and HJers understand it better than the other 38,000 sects of Xianity.


While the HJ community is not necessarily a christian cult, it is an interesting parallel that the early christians believed they understood jewish scripture better than the jews. The 'good news' about Jesus was hidden from the jews in scripture and finally revealed to people like Paul.

There isn't a thing that Jesus said or did that didn't come from pre-existing scripture and, for some strange reason, that's the only place Jesus does actually exist. Everything else is simply presumption based on hearsay. Christians didn't even know when Jesus supposedly lived until the destruction of the temple. Then it was easy (using scripture) to figure it out. It all happened in that one scriptural 40 year generation.
Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
User avatar
Corky
 
Posts: 1518
Age: 67
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24357  Postby willhud9 » May 04, 2012 11:31 pm

Corky wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Corky wrote:
proudfootz wrote:Naturally the various HJ hypotheses are not only in competition with each other and the various MJ hypotheses, they are also in competition with the null hypothesis.

AFAICT no MJ or HJ theory has been able to make an unquestionable case because of the nature of the evidence.

See, the trick is you have to understand the bible and HJers understand it better than the other 38,000 sects of Xianity.


While the HJ community is not necessarily a christian cult, it is an interesting parallel that the early christians believed they understood jewish scripture better than the jews. The 'good news' about Jesus was hidden from the jews in scripture and finally revealed to people like Paul.

There isn't a thing that Jesus said or did that didn't come from pre-existing scripture and, for some strange reason, that's the only place Jesus does actually exist. Everything else is simply presumption based on hearsay. Christians didn't even know when Jesus supposedly lived until the destruction of the temple. Then it was easy (using scripture) to figure it out. It all happened in that one scriptural 40 year generation.


Tell me Corky, can you tell me the events surrounding the formation of Hannukah? Can you tell me the life that history knows of Judas Maccabeus? The events of the revolts of the Maccabees is well accepted by historians. Yet, the man history says started the revolt is only known in 2 sources. First Maccabees and Josephus. Just 2 bleeding sources for one man. Yet history does not challenge his existence. Why? Because there is no need to challenge his existence. He doesn't matter in history. But you get this Jesus fellow. He is mentioned in several Roman documents (but they can be forgeries), he is mentioned in Jospehus' works (but they can be forgeries or mistranslated), he is mentioned in Paul's epistles (but he can be talking about a spirit or even better he could not exist and could be a 2nd century fabrication). This is at the core, what the MJ argument comes down to. But if we held the same level of scrutiny to other figures of antiquity we would find we can wipe out history books. Many of histories lesser figures, the people historians did not care about are mentioned in passages long obscure. Does this mean these people did not exist? Jesus was during the 1st century a back water preacher. Why should historians focus greatly on his life? Even the Christian sect was a weak and powerless sect, but we know the Christian sect existed. Jesus was a nobody to Romans and it wasn't until the Christians started getting a following that they were taken any notice and they were not seriously considered. So why should Suetonius, Tacitus, and even Jospehus write a lot about Jesus? He was a nobody. he did not lead a revolt like Judas Maccabeus, he did not preach zealotry, or even try to work the people up. He was a simple preacher. Hardly worth writing about when Roman historians were occupied writing about the affairs of Rome and Josephus was occupied writing about the history of the Jews and how Jews related to the world. Jesus, again, was a nobody. But yet we do have mentions of him, and Christ, we have mentions of Christians. We have Paul's letters which mention Jesus Christ. There is historical evidence that a Jesus existed. But to dismiss that evidence without proper historical scrutiny is superfluous. As I said, you can, inevitable do that to entire history books.
"Well sweet Mother Teresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz, you sound like a majestic fucking eagle." ~Instructor Shadis
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 13201
Age: 23
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24358  Postby Corky » May 05, 2012 12:18 am

willhud9 wrote:
Corky wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Corky wrote:
See, the trick is you have to understand the bible and HJers understand it better than the other 38,000 sects of Xianity.


While the HJ community is not necessarily a christian cult, it is an interesting parallel that the early christians believed they understood jewish scripture better than the jews. The 'good news' about Jesus was hidden from the jews in scripture and finally revealed to people like Paul.

There isn't a thing that Jesus said or did that didn't come from pre-existing scripture and, for some strange reason, that's the only place Jesus does actually exist. Everything else is simply presumption based on hearsay. Christians didn't even know when Jesus supposedly lived until the destruction of the temple. Then it was easy (using scripture) to figure it out. It all happened in that one scriptural 40 year generation.


Tell me Corky, can you tell me the events surrounding the formation of Hannukah? Can you tell me the life that history knows of Judas Maccabeus? The events of the revolts of the Maccabees is well accepted by historians. Yet, the man history says started the revolt is only known in 2 sources. First Maccabees and Josephus. Just 2 bleeding sources for one man. Yet history does not challenge his existence. Why? Because there is no need to challenge his existence. He doesn't matter in history. But you get this Jesus fellow. He is mentioned in several Roman documents (but they can be forgeries), he is mentioned in Jospehus' works (but they can be forgeries or mistranslated), he is mentioned in Paul's epistles (but he can be talking about a spirit or even better he could not exist and could be a 2nd century fabrication). This is at the core, what the MJ argument comes down to. But if we held the same level of scrutiny to other figures of antiquity we would find we can wipe out history books. Many of histories lesser figures, the people historians did not care about are mentioned in passages long obscure. Does this mean these people did not exist? Jesus was during the 1st century a back water preacher. Why should historians focus greatly on his life? Even the Christian sect was a weak and powerless sect, but we know the Christian sect existed. Jesus was a nobody to Romans and it wasn't until the Christians started getting a following that they were taken any notice and they were not seriously considered. So why should Suetonius, Tacitus, and even Jospehus write a lot about Jesus? He was a nobody. he did not lead a revolt like Judas Maccabeus, he did not preach zealotry, or even try to work the people up. He was a simple preacher. Hardly worth writing about when Roman historians were occupied writing about the affairs of Rome and Josephus was occupied writing about the history of the Jews and how Jews related to the world. Jesus, again, was a nobody. But yet we do have mentions of him, and Christ, we have mentions of Christians. We have Paul's letters which mention Jesus Christ. There is historical evidence that a Jesus existed. But to dismiss that evidence without proper historical scrutiny is superfluous. As I said, you can, inevitable do that to entire history books.

See though, there's a big difference between Judas Maccabeus and Jesus. The difference is that Judas does human things and thinks in human terms and acts in human ways - Jesus doesn't. Jesus is perfect, makes no mistakes, doesn't even die accept in ways that fulfill certain passages of scripture. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Jesus isn't human. When a person in a story isn't even human, that person doesn't exist. Historicists recognize this for many legends and myths but not for Jesus - why is that? It has to be that they have pre-assumed that this particular mythical sounding person did exist before even considering the evidence and they don't do that for persons like Tammuz. Show anything about Jesus that is human and I'll show you the scripture it comes from - scripture that pre-existed him. Even in the "made of a woman" verse of Gal. 4:4, Jesus isn't "born" but is "created" (made) of a woman. In other words, a second (or last) Adam like Paul also says in 1 Cor. 15:45, which would be a new "first man" from whom Christians count themselves descended from by being begotten by the gospel.
Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
User avatar
Corky
 
Posts: 1518
Age: 67
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24359  Postby willhud9 » May 05, 2012 3:07 am

Except in what Scripture is Jesus NOT human? Paul never argues that he is not human, nor does Paul argue that he is God. Jesus is Jesus. The other sources that are non-Christian do not paint Jesus as a God, or non-human. He is Jesus. To claim otherwise, is a silly apologetic attempt at interpreting Paul's epistles. You accuse HJ's of apologetics, I can accuse MJers of doing the same thing.
"Well sweet Mother Teresa on the hood of a Mercedes Benz, you sound like a majestic fucking eagle." ~Instructor Shadis
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 13201
Age: 23
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24360  Postby dogsgod » May 05, 2012 3:45 am

willhud9 wrote:Except in what Scripture is Jesus NOT human? Paul never argues that he is not human, nor does Paul argue that he is God. Jesus is Jesus. The other sources that are non-Christian do not paint Jesus as a God, or non-human. He is Jesus. To claim otherwise, is a silly apologetic attempt at interpreting Paul's epistles. You accuse HJ's of apologetics, I can accuse MJers of doing the same thing.

Paul's dying and rising Son of God was human? :doh:
dogsgod
 
Posts: 1904

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Topic Tags

Christianity, Jesus

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests