dogsgod wrote:What people believe to be true varies, that's what keeps people interested. I don't think we can know while some know damn well that Jesus existed and some know damn well that he didn't. We've been informed that the future of humanity is at stake, so whatever it is we are discussing, it's very important business.

Will we get long impassioned screeds about how the future of humanity is at stake if we 'lose' Boudicca as an historical person? Or Hannibal?

I think we won't.

Jesus is special that way...

He certainly seems to have caught your attention.

logical bob wrote:He certainly seems to have caught your attention.

I don't think we're any longer making any bones about the notion that Jesus is a political football. Parenthetically, Jesus is a great opportunity to parlay a lot of religiously-or-non-religiously-motivated bible study into 'scholarly' enterprise.

Byron, since you're back (one is beginning to suspect that you have a life outside of this thread!) could you please explain what you meant when you said that you were intergrating Jesus' eschatology into your understanding of the god-concept? :S

MS2 wrote:

spin wrote:

MS2 wrote:

RealityRules wrote:As far as "there does not appear to be much information about the historical Jesus outside the canon of the New Testament", this thread shows that the extra-biblical sources are extremely light-weight and dubious!!

Nobody has been able to show otherwise!

I agree with Evan Allen -

Then like Evan Allen and Angelo it seems you are unable to distinguish an argument about evidence for existence and Ehrman's discussion of the sources for biographical detail. I guess that, unlike Angelo, you have not had it pointed out to you a number of times that quoting Ehrman as though he is discussing the former misrepresents Ehrman's views.

Another contentless metadiscussion. If you just want to stir the shit, MS2, as it appears you do, try doing it elsewhere. You know that nothing useful will come out of calling someone's statement a lie.

Whether something useful comes out of it depends on...

...whether you assure people you will stop calling things lies.

MS2 wrote:... whether Angelo misuses the quote again in future. That I don't know, and nor do you.

Nice of you to impugn my motives by the way.

I signaled the statement "as it appears to me". You go around calling people's statements lies (which I would think you wouldn't like people doing regarding you). It is normal to take that as it appears.

MS2 wrote:I seem to recall you don't like it when others get close to that territory with you, and since it is not something I have ever done, I'm surprised you've seen fit to try it on me. I'm almost tempted to wonder why (but not quite!)

This is just you trying to dig yourself out of the ditch of your own fashioning with a jaunty tu quoque.

MS2 wrote:While you are here can I take the opportunity to point you to this request: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1134466 (specifically my final 2 paras)

I note you haven't responded to it yet, or to a number of other posters who have made the same request.

So you too want someone to give you a bible on how to do history. I recommend you start with History 101 and work your way up.

Incidentally, "in a scholarly sense" can indicate "with no hidden presuppositions". The reason we cannot infer anything about the historical Jesus is because no Jesus of the christian sense has forced his way into history. At every attempt to establish this Jesus we find doubt instead of evidence, naive literalism instead of a discourse with the materials, hermeneutics instead of historiography.

Every scholarly pursuit must be able to respond to foundational investigations, everything held as true must needs respond to the question does this really have any basis. This historical Jesus stuff has consistently been, we can presuppose the existence of Jesus, so let's get on with the inferences. Well, you fucking can't. That is not history. Nothing is presupposed per se. One might think such things are banal and no longer need be responded to, though ultimately there must be something to demonstrate that it is now banal. However, when that air of smug we've-got-that-all-under-control turns out to be subterfuge, as seems to be the case with the notion of a historical Jesus, you and I have the duty to call it for what it is.

We come down to the same source materials religious documents that are anonymous, unprovenanced and undated, allowing little scope for any sort of historical endeavour, or secular works referring to christ or christianity that have been preserved by christian institutions, some of which have the appearance of being secondary. It's rather hard to extract historically viable sources on which to establish anything about a specific past.

If you want to present a case for a historical Jesus there are quite a few champing at the bit here to analyse it for you.

proudfootz wrote:

dogsgod wrote:What people believe to be true varies, that's what keeps people interested. I don't think we can know while some know damn well that Jesus existed and some know damn well that he didn't. We've been informed that the future of humanity is at stake, so whatever it is we are discussing, it's very important business.

Will we get long impassioned screeds about how the future of humanity is at stake if we 'lose' Boudicca as an historical person? Or Hannibal?

I think we won't.

Jesus is special that way...

It would be interesting to witness amateur scholars persisting in pouring the acid of skepticism on all scholarly work on those figures. So mythologised and so prone to the distorting lenses of romanticism,nationalism and wishful thinking of all types.

Ian Tattum wrote:
It would be interesting to witness amateur scholars blah blah bleeble

So, we're back to the 'credential' and 'argument from authority'. Haven't seen that one for the last twenty pages, at least.

If only the historical-critical method had a method... other than conjuring.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
It would be interesting to witness amateur scholars blah blah bleeble

So, we're back to the 'credential' and 'argument from authority'. Haven't seen that one for the last twenty pages, at least.

If only the historical-critical method had a method... other than conjuring.

This place is crawling with people who think they can apply what they think is a true historical method to one set of ancient documents, so why not extend their objective reach to purported evidence about other mythological figures? Their forensic skills should not be wasted on one lone phantom figure surely?

Ian Tattum wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
It would be interesting to witness amateur scholars blah blah bleeble

So, we're back to the 'credential' and 'argument from authority'. Haven't seen that one for the last twenty pages, at least.

If only the historical-critical method had a method... other than conjuring.

This place is crawling with people who think they can apply what they think is a true historical method to one set of ancient documents...

Does that upset you in some way? Do you think too much scrutiny is being applied here? The H-C method is applied by people who have no other methodology and are trying to pass off literature as history.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
It would be interesting to witness amateur scholars blah blah bleeble

So, we're back to the 'credential' and 'argument from authority'. Haven't seen that one for the last twenty pages, at least.

If only the historical-critical method had a method... other than conjuring.

This place is crawling with people who think they can apply what they think is a true historical method to one set of ancient documents...

Does that upset you in some way? Do you think too much scrutiny is being applied here? The H-C method is applied by people who have no other methodology and are trying to pass off literature as history.

It amuses me, for its ironic quality and its partisan concept of historical method.

archibald wrote:A thread entitled 'What can we reasonably infer about early Christianity?' might be interesting. Is it too late?

On second thoughts, no, it's probably just as much of an intellectual tar pit.

Alternatively, here's Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. It was definitely a fascinating read, especially the level of depth they get into, but I'm sure that the actual book is even more fascinating. Has anyone here read it?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... uzzle.html

For crying out loud, that's how this whole damn thread starts, with an invite from KirbyTime to read this same link (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... -t219.html). It's only the %#$%^&%$^$^& OP on Page 1!

Are you just trying to be provoking?

Stein

Stein wrote:
Are you just trying to be provoking?

Who's trying to be provoking and who's trying to be provoked is a kind of chicken-egg problem. I know you'd try to get over that, but the future of western civilisation is at stake. You failed to note archibald's use of irony. If you find irony provoking, you'd best not hang out in online forums.

Ian Tattum wrote:It would be interesting to witness amateur scholars persisting in pouring the acid of skepticism on all scholarly work on those figures. So mythologised and so prone to the distorting lenses of romanticism,nationalism and wishful thinking of all types.

Yes, I think amateurs are perfectly justified in skepticism over a guild of scholars that contains a significant minority, if not a majority who believe in things like demons causing illness and the resurrection of a dead man in the 1st century as a historical fact. There are rules for determining when an academic consensus is likely to be flawed. Jesus scholarship fails on both accounts.

It has no low-hanging fruit. Heck, it has no fruit.

It also has profound ideological interests clouding the scholars' judgment, since almost all start their work for confessional reasons.

Appeals to that consensus should be removed from this thread unless more can be given to support the consensus than its bare existence.

proudfootz wrote:

dogsgod wrote:What people believe to be true varies, that's what keeps people interested. I don't think we can know while some know damn well that Jesus existed and some know damn well that he didn't. We've been informed that the future of humanity is at stake, so whatever it is we are discussing, it's very important business.

Will we get long impassioned screeds about how the future of humanity is at stake if we 'lose' Boudicca as an historical person? Or Hannibal?

If we "lose" any of the following 22 figures, then we will: Mesalim, Urukagina, Hammurabi, Hesiod, Solon, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus Christ, Ulpian, Mohammed, James Naylor, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Bahá’u’lláh, Alexander II, Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela.

Stein

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

dogsgod wrote:What people believe to be true varies, that's what keeps people interested. I don't think we can know while some know damn well that Jesus existed and some know damn well that he didn't. We've been informed that the future of humanity is at stake, so whatever it is we are discussing, it's very important business.

Will we get long impassioned screeds about how the future of humanity is at stake if we 'lose' Boudicca as an historical person? Or Hannibal?

If we "lose" any of the following 22 figures, then we will: Mesalim, Urukagina, Hammurabi, Hesiod, Solon, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus Christ, Ulpian, Mohammed, James Naylor, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Bahá’u’lláh, Alexander II, Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela.

Stein

Can you explain why?

What about these individual's bare existence, rather than the ideas that they are associated with makes any difference?

Certainly the truth or falsity of the propositions put forward by the idea-set of "Buddhism" can stand or fall on their own even in the absence of a historical founder. The same would be true of Confucius, Socrates and others of your list.

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

dogsgod wrote:What people believe to be true varies, that's what keeps people interested. I don't think we can know while some know damn well that Jesus existed and some know damn well that he didn't. We've been informed that the future of humanity is at stake, so whatever it is we are discussing, it's very important business.

Will we get long impassioned screeds about how the future of humanity is at stake if we 'lose' Boudicca as an historical person? Or Hannibal?

If we "lose" any of the following 22 figures, then we will: Mesalim, Urukagina, Hammurabi, Hesiod, Solon, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus Christ, Ulpian, Mohammed, James Naylor, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Bahá’u’lláh, Alexander II, Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela.

Absolutely and utterly no quality control here, folks. Just dominoes flying. Stein demonstrates that you don't need to do history to get a historical Jesus. Just include him with a bunch of names that you assume are historical and voila', Jesus gets tarred by the same brush. See, no history necessary. Fucking hilarious.

But let's play spot the odd man out: Erica Jong, Sappho, Mary Stuart, Amelia Earhart, Hypatia, Jesus, Indira Ghandi, Emmaline Pankhurst, Anais Nin, Simone de Beauvoir, Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, Susan Sontag. You may notice the similarity with Stein's list.

Mus Ponticus wrote:Byron, since you're back (one is beginning to suspect that you have a life outside of this thread!) could you please explain what you meant when you said that you were intergrating Jesus' eschatology into your understanding of the god-concept? :S

I'm not sure how to break it down much further: I'm seeing how the idea of god is affected by relating it to a 1st century apocalyptic preacher. There's not much on this, since most traditional Christians rejected the flawed human Jesus, and most HJ scholars compartmentalize to stay sane. But hey, I like a challenge.

spin wrote:

Stein wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

dogsgod wrote:What people believe to be true varies, that's what keeps people interested. I don't think we can know while some know damn well that Jesus existed and some know damn well that he didn't. We've been informed that the future of humanity is at stake, so whatever it is we are discussing, it's very important business.

Will we get long impassioned screeds about how the future of humanity is at stake if we 'lose' Boudicca as an historical person? Or Hannibal?

If we "lose" any of the following 22 figures, then we will: Mesalim, Urukagina, Hammurabi, Hesiod, Solon, Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Jesus Christ, Ulpian, Mohammed, James Naylor, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Bahá’u’lláh, Alexander II, Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela.

Absolutely and utterly no quality control here, folks. Just dominoes flying. Stein demonstrates that you don't need to do history to get a historical Jesus. Just include him with a bunch of names that you assume are historical and voila', Jesus gets tarred by the same brush. See, no history necessary. Fucking hilarious.

But let's play spot the odd man out: Erica Jong, Sappho, Mary Stuart, Amelia Earhart, Hypatia, Jesus, Indira Ghandi, Emmaline Pankhurst, Anais Nin, Simone de Beauvoir, Ayn Rand, Sarah Palin, Susan Sontag. You may notice the similarity with Stein's list.

Each of my figures kept up an uncomfortable dialogue on how we treat our fellow man. Nothing like that ties your group together.

Stein

Stein wrote: Hesiod

That made me curious. Do you mean that we need the poems of Hesiod or do we need actual biography about the author? There isn't much of the latter and it's entirely inferred from the poems. Oh and yes, there's disagreement about whether he really had a brother. Groundhog Day.

spin wrote: ...

Not worth responding to.

MS2 wrote:While you are here can I take the opportunity to point you to this request: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... l#p1134466 (specifically my final 2 paras)

I note you haven't responded to it yet, or to a number of other posters who have made the same request.

So you too want someone to give you a bible on how to do history. I recommend you start with History 101 and work your way up.
...

Failure to respond with anything substantive noted. I actually wondered if you might have something useful. At least now I know for sure you don't.