Historical Jesus

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

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Historical Jesus [strict moderation]

#43381  Postby RealityRules » Oct 06, 2022 1:05 am

My above post should only have UndercoverElephant's 2012 post quoted, ie. without nunnington invoked, thus:
UndercoverElephant wrote: the striking parallels between the story of Jesus' ministry in the gospels and the historical facts of the Flavian war in Judea

Because it's a new page I'll include it all here:
RealityRules wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote: the striking parallels between the story of Jesus' ministry in the gospels and the historical facts of the Flavian war in Judea

    doesn't mean the Flavians or other Romans concocted or wrote the Christian narrative/s.

    There is, however, good scholarship that argues that Christian narratives use and reflect aspects of tropes and history of aspects of the Roman Empire and persons therein, including the Flavians and other emperors, and the works of Josephus.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning the Historicity of Christ

#43382  Postby Leucius Charinus » Oct 11, 2022 12:49 am

RealityRules wrote: I don't think the coin or the dolphin stuff is good evidence, either.


Neither do I. It looks like an appeal to the very weak argument linking the presence of early Christians to the presence of the fish symbol in inscriptions. The use of the fish symbol in all likelihood was related to the fishing industry.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 897

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43383  Postby RealityRules » Oct 15, 2022 2:18 am

Bart Ehrman seems to have moved to sit on the fence, or to move towards sitting on the fence, in a recent blog-post
https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-perso ... r-existed/
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43384  Postby Hermit » Oct 15, 2022 6:36 am

RealityRules wrote:Bart Ehrman seems to have moved to sit on the fence, or to move towards sitting on the fence, in a recent blog-post
https://ehrmanblog.org/would-i-be-perso ... r-existed/

Ehrman did neither. As this blog entry explicitly states, he would not be traumatized if the mythicists were right after all. Not in the least. Meanwhile, he remains firmly of the opinion "that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist." There is no hint that Ehrman has changed his mind about that; just that he will do so if evidence to the contrary turns up because, as he put it,
Since I am an agnostic who does not believe in Jesus, one could easily argue that a mythicist position would be more attractive to me personally. I too could then argue, as a scholar, that Jesus did not exist and that people should seriously consider leaving the Christian faith as I myself did.

So why don’t I argue that, if it would be more palatable with my personal view of the world? Because I’m a historian, and I think evidence really matters, and it matters that we get history right, so far as we can. If we rewrite history according to our own agendas and in light of our own deeply vested interests, how are we any better than other ideologues — for example those that made such a mess of the twentieth century, in various parts of the world, with their rewriting of history? We simply cannot allow ourselves to rewrite history to suit our purposes.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4927
Age: 69
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43385  Postby RealityRules » Oct 15, 2022 7:33 am

Hermit wrote:There is no hint that Ehrman has changed his mind

    I didn't say he had
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43386  Postby RealityRules » Oct 15, 2022 7:51 am

Bart Ehrman wrote:Since I am an agnostic who does not believe in Jesus, one could easily argue that a mythicist position would be more attractive to me personally. I too could then argue, as a scholar, that Jesus did not exist and that people should seriously consider leaving the Christian faith as I myself did.

So why don’t I argue that, if it would be more palatable with my personal view of the world? Because I’m a historian, and I think evidence really matters, and it matters that we get history right, so far as we can. If we rewrite history according to our own agendas and in light of our own deeply vested interests, how are we any better than other ideologues — for example those that made such a mess of the twentieth century, in various parts of the world, with their rewriting of history? We simply cannot allow ourselves to rewrite history to suit our purposes.

This is typical "from the belly-button Bart" (aka navel-gazing inspired philosophy & expression of it)

First, he claims that, if he argued "that Jesus did not exist," that "people should seriously consider leaving the Christian faith as I myself did." That's laughable ego-centricity. Who does he think he is? The Pied Piper?

Secondly, he says, "I think evidence really matters, and it matters that we get history right, so far as we can."

One would think he might have said, "I think the evidence really matters," and then given a potted summary of 'the evidence.'

But he merely gets pious with, "it matters that we get history right," and then goes off on a tangent and waffles about "agendas," deeply vested interests." and "ideologies...that made such a mess of the twentieth century".

Maybe he thinks or is even implying "mass mythicism" will make a mess of the twenty-first century?

Weird ramblings.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43387  Postby Hermit » Oct 15, 2022 6:29 pm

RealityRules wrote:
Hermit wrote:There is no hint that Ehrman has changed his mind

    I didn't say he had

Cool. Who said you did?

You wrote
Bart Ehrman seems to have moved to sit on the fence, or to move towards sitting on the fence, in a recent blog-post

I replied
Ehrman did neither.

The rest of my post was my reasoning why he did neither.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4927
Age: 69
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43388  Postby RealityRules » Oct 16, 2022 11:28 pm

Hermit wrote:he remains firmly of the opinion "that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist."

He didn't say 'firmly'.

That quote in context:

Bart Ehrman wrote:
I read what scores and scores of scholars had to say about Jesus. And on that basis I decided whether I was right or not. I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.

Would I be devastated to learn I was wrong? Absolutely NOT!!!


He's appealing to group authority: group-think. But, yes, 'opinion,' is the right word
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43389  Postby Hermit » Oct 17, 2022 2:36 am

RealityRules wrote:
Hermit wrote:he remains firmly of the opinion "that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist."

He didn't say 'firmly'.

That quote in context:

Bart Ehrman wrote:
I read what scores and scores of scholars had to say about Jesus. And on that basis I decided whether I was right or not. I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.

Would I be devastated to learn I was wrong? Absolutely NOT!!!


Looks firm enough to me.

What you regard as context indicating Ehrman seeming to have moved to sit on the fence, or to move towards sitting on the fence, isn't.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4927
Age: 69
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43390  Postby RealityRules » Oct 20, 2022 7:09 am

Hermit wrote:
Bart Ehrman wrote:
I read what scores and scores of scholars had to say about Jesus. And on that basis I decided whether I was right or not. I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.

Looks firm enough to me.

    Yes, that looks firm (Though it's a conclusion of argument from in-group authority)

    He says next
Bart Ehrman wrote:Would I be devastated to learn I was wrong? Absolutely NOT!!! Quite the contrary – throughout my scholarly career I have changed my views on lots of lots of issues ...

And, later:
Bart Ehrman wrote:Would I be traumatized if the mythicists were right after all? Not in the least. I would probably feel energized.

    "if the mythicists were right after all... I would probably feel energized"
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43391  Postby Hermit » Oct 20, 2022 11:32 am

RealityRules wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Bart Ehrman wrote:
I read what scores and scores of scholars had to say about Jesus. And on that basis I decided whether I was right or not. I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.

Looks firm enough to me.

    Yes, that looks firm (Though it's a conclusion of argument from in-group authority)

Yes and yes.

RealityRules wrote:
Hermit wrote:
He says next
Bart Ehrman wrote:Would I be devastated to learn I was wrong? Absolutely NOT!!! Quite the contrary – throughout my scholarly career I have changed my views on lots of lots of issues ...

And, later:
Bart Ehrman wrote:Would I be traumatized if the mythicists were right after all? Not in the least. I would probably feel energized.

    "if the mythicists were right after all... I would probably feel energized"

Again: Neither means "Ehrman seems to have moved to sit on the fence, or to move towards sitting on the fence". Fat chance of that precisely because according to him "the vast majority of scholars are absolutely right. Jesus did exist". But yeah, if you wish to die on the hill of claiming that "Ehrman seems to have moved to sit on the fence, or to move towards sitting on the fence", be my guest.


Just in case you think I agree with Ehrman, I made it perfectly clear that I do not. Check these comments I posted over three years ago: 42487, 42492, 42499 and 42542 .
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4927
Age: 69
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43392  Postby RealityRules » Oct 22, 2022 4:05 am

Hermit wrote: if you wish to die on the hill

You're being melodramatic, in more ways than one.

But consider the basic logic of 'if' statements:

    If A, then B
ie. you can't reasonable just focus on or stop at 'if'
ie. think about the A and B eg. of "if (A) the mythicists were right after all ... (B) I would probably feel energized"

Using your logic, I was somehow seeking to claim A: that "the mythicists were right after all." Which I'm not.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43393  Postby Hermit » Oct 22, 2022 8:03 am

RealityRules wrote:
Hermit wrote: if you wish to die on the hill

You're being melodramatic, in more ways than one.

But consider the basic logic of 'if' statements:

    If A, then B
ie. you can't reasonable just focus on or stop at 'if'
ie. think about the A and B eg. of "if (A) the mythicists were right after all ... (B) I would probably feel energized"

Using your logic, I was somehow seeking to claim A: that "the mythicists were right after all." Which I'm not.

My claim is rather less ambitious. Let me rephrase in the hope you understand what it is: If you think Ehrman's words: "Would I be traumatized if the mythicists were right after all? Not in the least. I would probably feel energized." mean "Bart Ehrman seems to have moved to sit on the fence, or to move towards sitting on the fence", and keep defending that assertion, you are welcome to die on that hill. Nothing in Ehrman's words indicates anything of the sort.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4927
Age: 69
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43394  Postby RealityRules » Oct 22, 2022 9:44 am

Hermit wrote:you are welcome to die on that hill

Nah, "Not in the least." Like Ehrman aspires, I "feel energized."
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43395  Postby Hermit » Oct 22, 2022 11:04 am

RealityRules wrote:
Hermit wrote:you are welcome to die on that hill

Nah, "Not in the least." Like Ehrman aspires, I "feel energized."

OK, keep dreaming "Bart Ehrman seems to have moved to sit on the fence, or to move towards sitting on the fence"
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4927
Age: 69
Male

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43396  Postby Leucius Charinus » Oct 28, 2022 10:02 am

Does Bart still compare Jesus mythicism with holocaust denialism?
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 897

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43397  Postby RealityRules » Oct 29, 2022 1:07 am

Hermit wrote:
Bart Ehrman wrote: it would be more palatable with my personal view of the world

User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2933

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43398  Postby proudfootz » Nov 22, 2022 10:32 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:Does Bart still compare Jesus mythicism with holocaust denialism?


If it turns out the mythicists were right about Jesus, does that me Ehrman will reconsider the Holocaust? :coffee:
"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: 11030

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

Re: Historical Jesus

#43399  Postby Leucius Charinus » Dec 06, 2022 3:14 am

It may mean that Ehrman and the Church Industry reconsider their business model.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 897

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#43400  Postby dejuror » Dec 26, 2022 5:26 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:It may mean that Ehrman and the Church Industry reconsider their business model.

Why would those who make money from claiming Jesus existed without evidence change their business model?

Ehrman's argument for an historical Jesus is extremely weak since he cannot present a shred of historical evidence.
The use of the so-called Pauline Epistles by Ehrman to argue for the historicity of Jesus is just bizarre.
1. The supposed Pauline writer claimed he persecuted the faith in Judea.
2. The writer claimed he met Peter and the Lord's brother.
3. The so-called Pauline writings imply that the governor under Aretas wanted to have him arrested.
4. In the Epistles it is claimed Paul was in Jerusalem.
5. The Epistles mention Jesus over one hundred times.

The so-called Pauline writer appears to be one who should have at least seen Jesus of Nazareth but like all the NT writers there is not one mention by the so-called Paul that he met, saw or stayed with Jesus anywhere at anytime.
dejuror
 
Posts: 4755

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests