Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 560 (617902)
05-31-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by crashfrog
05-31-2011 3:22 PM


Re: Consequentially Jesus
So what's the relevance of the fact that Jews don't think he's the messiah, if Christians do? Doesn't it make sense that Christians would invent a messiah for Christians and not for Jews?
Modern Jews don't, but there were many early followers of Jesus who were Jews and who thought he was the Messiah. Just read the New Testament: it's full of people talking about those Jews following Jesus the Jew doing Jewish things and who was believed to be the Jewish Messiah.
If this is not clear to you, then you have not done your homework.
You're right. Over and over and over and over, "historical Jesus" proponents keep talking about all the evidence they've presented.
Only one problem: they never present any of it. They just say they're about to, and then say that they did. It's really very astounding.
Whatever, Crash. You got nothing, and everyone can see it. You ain't fooling anybody but yourself.
A prediction is what you do when, before something happens, you state that it will happen. What you're doing - what "historical Jesus" proponents are doing when they try to explain why there are no contemporary records of the life of Jesus - is a post-hoc rationalization of a fact that is disconfirming to the "historical Jesus" hypothesis.
If only any of that had anything to do with how actual historians go about studying history. Too bad it doesn't.
I mean, you either have a historical Jesus about whom nearly everything Christians believe is a fabrication, or you have a mythical Jesus about whom everything Christians believe is a fabrication. In either case, the explanation for the development of early Christian beliefs and practices is identical: invention.
Huh? Of course not. If there was a Jesus who was crucified, then that would be one thing that is not a fabrication. If there was no Jesus who was crucified, then that fails to explain the belief that there was.
There may be a good explanation for this belief that doesn't involve an historical Jesus, and I've seen some put forward. Unfortunately you haven't offered anything yet.
It hardly consists of "nothing." It consists of everything that is in the "historical Jesus" explanation, minus a historical Jesus.
Utter stupidity. Your position asserts nothingliterally. You still haven't been able to point out the substantive parts of your position and demonstrate how they function to explain anything. We're all waiting. Get to it already.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 3:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 4:06 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 257 of 560 (617905)
05-31-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Jon
05-31-2011 3:45 PM


Re: Execution records
For example, if you read the letters of Paul, you will see repeated mention to the Jewish origin of the Jesus movement.
Sure, but we agree that's probably a fabrication, since Jesus wasn't the messiah of the Jews, didn't in any way meet the requirements to be messiah of the Jews, and wasn't considered by any Jew to be the Jewish messiah. I mean, you said all that, as I understand you.
Because they believed he was the Messiah. How many times must this be repeated?
Until it makes sense, because I can't make heads or tails of it. Can you elaborate?
His followers gathered around him hoping he would deliver on their beliefs of his messiahship and overthrow the Romans and re-establish Jewish rule in Palestine.
Did they? What's the evidence for this view?
Again, it explains nothing. Your explanation does not offer up anything at all. Nothing.
Jon, at this point I have to believe that you're just trolling me. You know there's not nothing because you quoted a lot of not nothing.
You can continue to insist that the mythical Jesus view is just a great big "nothing" but by now you must know that it's not; it's as much "something" as the "historical Jesus" view minus an actual historical Jesus.
You do not propose an origin for the early Christian beliefs and practices. You do not propose an origin for the early Christian stories.
That's false, as I did present an origin for both: they were invented. That happens to be the same origin proposed by the "historical Jesus" position as well - another example of the "something" shared by both my position and yours.
You simply say that such and such wasn't real; and this cannot ever explain anything because it is, by definition, void of content.
It's not at all "void of content." The content is "somebody invented it." Somebody took the direct action of making up a story. That's not nothing; that's an incredibly common human act that happens all the time. For instance, it happens every time you characterize my position as being "nothing."
Where did all the Earth's fiction come from, Jon, if the act of creating a story that isn't true is "nothing"? Where do lies come from if not human acts? In particular where do all your many and scurrilous lies about me and about my position come from if lies cannot be produced because it's all a big "nothing"?
You need to learn more about the religious environment in first century Palestine.
You need to come up with a way to grapple with arguments besides misrepresenting them or ignoring them in their entirety.
No he's not
He's not? By all means then, Jon, what significance does PaulK place on the nonexistence of Jesus's execution documents?
No I don't, and I never said I did.
It's the necessary implication of a position you've adopted, but you change your mind so frequently who can possibly know what you believe?
Good thing I never said that.
No, I said that, Jon. Believe me, I'm very much under the impression that you are arguing that Jesus was a real historical person and I'm attempting to rebut that view. How did you possibly get confused about that?
They merely tell us that we must look at other things to determine historical reliability of the claims.
Yes! My point exactly. And now that you accept it, it's clear that you no longer believe that the inclusion of real historical places in the Gospels is relevant to the veracity of their historical claims.
Your retraction is accepted.
Your hypothesis proposes nothing.
No, this is incorrect. What it proposes is that Christianity and the early church are founded on stories invented about a figure who, likely, did not ever exist.
That's very much a "something"; it's proposing that the very common act of inventing stories occurred in First Century Palestine the same way it has occurred at every other point in history by every human being living or dead. It's as contentious a proposal as suggesting that the residents of First Century Palestine breathed air and not water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 3:45 PM Jon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 258 of 560 (617906)
05-31-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by crashfrog
05-31-2011 2:39 PM


Re: Names and Roman Records
But there is no "historic Santa Claus", just as there's no historic James Bond.
For what it's worth:
quote:
Santa Claus in this contemporary understanding echoes aspects of hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of gift-giver Saint Nicholas, the man from whom the name of Santa Claus derives and in whose honor Santa Claus may be referred to as Saint Nicholas or Saint Nick
Santa Claus - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 2:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 4:10 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 259 of 560 (617907)
05-31-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2011 2:44 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
No, what it is?
It wasn't a rhetorical question

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 4:50 PM Modulous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 260 of 560 (617911)
05-31-2011 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Jon
05-31-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Consequentially Jesus
Modern Jews don't, but there were many early followers of Jesus who were Jews and who thought he was the Messiah.
Right, they were Christians. Since Jesus is held to be the Christian messiah I'm at a loss about what could possibly be significant about this claim.
Whatever, Crash.
Well, prove me wrong and present it! I've only been asking for 150 posts.
If only any of that had anything to do with how actual historians go about studying history.
This is exactly how historians study history because history, by definition, has already happened. You can't rewind history and then make predictions about what's going to happen because it already happened and therefore you know it happened. Predictions, as I've said, are statements about what is going to happen before it happens. Nobody calls it a "prediction" when you open the paper and read last night's Lotto numbers.
Historians, as a rule, also avoid post-hoc rationalizations for lack of evidence because too much of that makes you look like a total boob. Enough post-hoc rationalizations and the lack of evidence can be evidence for anything at all, including first century Martians with invisible space ships. ("Nobody saw them? Of course not, stupid, they're invisible!")
If there was no Jesus who was crucified, then that fails to explain the belief that there was.
You're right. But invention of the story both explains the lack of a Jesus who was crucified and the belief that there was a Jesus who was crucified.
The "mythical Jesus" position isn't just "no Jesus." It's everything that's in the "historical Jesus" position, minus the historical Jesus.
We're all waiting. Get to it already.
Done and done. Are you prepared to do anything but lie about my position in response?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 3:56 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 261 of 560 (617915)
05-31-2011 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Modulous
05-31-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Names and Roman Records
For what it's worth:
But there's no such thing as Santa Claus, right?
I'm asking, Mod, because I think you're unclear on the difference between a fictional character inspired by a real person - as all fictional characters are - and the historical figure, if any, that is at the heart of a legend.
If you're arguing that all fictional characters are "real" because some aspect of them can be traced to a real person who existed, then you're arguing against the existence of fictional characters. Fiction and reality can;t be separated like that.
Under the traditional meaning of words, the fact that there was an American ornithologist named "James Bond" and a handful of actual suave, sophisticated British secret agents with concealed gadgetry doesn't provide any support to the notion that James Bond is not an utterly fictional character.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 4:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 4:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 262 of 560 (617916)
05-31-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Jon
05-31-2011 3:45 PM


Re: Execution records
and the case is pretty solid: the Jesus movement was first and foremost Jewish.
Not at all. Maybe you should read some history of the early Christian church or even just read Paul. Paul made it very clear that Jewishness was not at all part of being a follower of this new religion. He makes it very clear that there was no need to be Jewish to follow his new religion of Jesus. His letters show a stark contrast with others about whether one had to follow the Jewish law or not. This shows that gentiles were being attracted to this new religion. Paul's writings clearly show that the movement was a gentile movement with roots in the Jewish religion.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 3:45 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 4:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 560 (617928)
05-31-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Theodoric
05-31-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Execution records
Paul made it very clear that Jewishness was not at all part of being a follower of this new religion.
Whatever Paul thought of the Jewishness of the Jesus movement is irrelevant to the fact that he makes it pretty clear that the Jesus movement started out Jewish.
No one really cares if he thought that was a bad thing or not.
This shows that gentiles were being attracted to this new religion.
Yup. And?
Paul's writings clearly show that the movement was a gentile movement with roots in the Jewish religion.
I'm not sure what this means; it seems pretty much in line with what I stated: the Jesus movement started out Jewish.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Theodoric, posted 05-31-2011 4:12 PM Theodoric has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 264 of 560 (617932)
05-31-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by crashfrog
05-31-2011 4:10 PM


Re: Names and Roman Records
But there's no such thing as Santa Claus, right?
There is a person who was posthumously canonized who has later been called Santa Claus who has had legendary status and abilities associated with him over time.
I'm asking, Mod, because I think you're unclear on the difference between a fictional character inspired by a real person - as all fictional characters are - and the historical figure, if any, that is at the heart of a legend.
Sometimes a fictional character is more closely associated with a real historical figure. For example, there is no single historical figure that we associate with Dexter, the Serial Killer. He is a fictional killer based on known serial killers. On the other hand, Count Dracula can be seen to be based on the historical Voivoide Vlad Tepes III son of the Dragon.
That's why the word historical gets appended. It means to seperate it from 'folklore' or 'legendary'.
The real person that inspires a legendary figure is sometimes studied via so that an account of that real person is created which is called a 'history' and that character is called the 'historical x'.
The Historical Christopher Columbus didn't call himself Christopher Columbus (this again is an Anglicization of a Latinisation), didn't try to persuade the Portuguese courts that the world was round etc - Is Christopher Columbus a fictional character? Maybe, but we can confidently assert there was a real person we associate with that name and we can discuss the historical account of that person which we might call 'the Historical Christopher Columbus'.
If you're arguing that all fictional characters are "real" because some aspect of them can be traced to a real person who existed, then you're arguing against the existence of fictional characters. Fiction and reality can;t be separated like that.
I'm glad I'm not suggesting that fictional characters are real at all. I'm not suggesting the Christ the God is real. I'm just arguing that the character Jesus Christ can weakly be traced to a real person about which we can derive a very limited history.
Under the traditional meaning of words, the fact that there was an American ornithologist named "James Bond" and a handful of actual suave, sophisticated British secret agents with concealed gadgetry doesn't provide any support to the notion that James Bond is not an utterly fictional character.
Agreed, but that's not what is happening here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 4:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 5:12 PM Modulous has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 560 (617933)
05-31-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Modulous
05-31-2011 4:02 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
No, what it is?
It wasn't a rhetorical question
Is there really even a consensus then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 4:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 5:18 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 266 of 560 (617943)
05-31-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by PaulK
05-31-2011 1:51 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
Then why should we be talking about defaults, when they only apply in the absence of evidence?
Because I am asking what amount and/or quality of evidence do we demand before we abandon the null hypothesis.
I don't believe that the idea of the null hypothesis applies to history in the way it does in the experimental sciences.
Why not? Lets not get caught up in the terminology. Using a "null hypothesis" and applying evidence to it is how we rationally investigate every other aspect of the world. Why should we apply a different standard to history? Other historical sciences do not have this problem.
Rather, we start with the evidence and look for the best explanation.
Why does that methodology negate the usefulness of a null hypothesis? Of course we should look at the evidence and look for the best explanation.
Obviously the existence of evidence is enough to push us into the different paradigm of looking for explanations rather than simply relying on default assumptions.
No it is not obvious at all. Keeping with an analogy to an experimental procedure, if there is a strong prior on the null hypothesis, it would take significantly more evidence to abandon the null hypothesis than it would with no prior.
If any tini tidbit of evidence should dramatically sway our conclusion, then we would have no basis in which to ground those conclusions. Are you familiar with Bayesian reasoning?
But a historical Jesus isn't a new paradigm at all. There's nothing special in that hypothesis. So depending on which you mean, the answer is either that it is obvious, or that there is no new paradigm involved at all.
And we should be careful not to commit an appeal to tradition.
My point is that if we were starting from scratch, we would require a certain amount of evidence before we hold any particular conclusion other than non-existence. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that prima facie evidence is insufficient for abandoning the null hypothesis.
My question remains, why is it so abundantly clear to you that it should? Other than telling me that it is "obvious" I don't think you have addressed my concerns at all.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 1:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Jon, posted 05-31-2011 5:25 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 272 by PaulK, posted 05-31-2011 6:37 PM Jazzns has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 267 of 560 (617945)
05-31-2011 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Modulous
05-31-2011 4:48 PM


Re: Names and Roman Records
For example, there is no single historical figure that we associate with Dexter, the Serial Killer. He is a fictional killer based on known serial killers.
Right. So, there's no "historical Dexter." Is the difference between Dexter and Dracula the fact that Dexter was likely inspired by a number of individuals whom we probably couldn't identify and Dracula was likely inspired by a specific individual, known to exist, who we can identify with a fair degree of certainty?
The Historical Christopher Columbus didn't call himself Christopher Columbus (this again is an Anglicization of a Latinisation), didn't try to persuade the Portuguese courts that the world was round etc - Is Christopher Columbus a fictional character?
No, because there really was a guy who sailed from Portugal with the Pinta, the Nina, and the Santa Maria, and whose name when Anglicized from the Latinization really does wind up being "Christopher Columbus." There's enough independent, contemporary historical verification of the existence of a person who meets certain critical characteristics of the Columbus legend that we can confidently state that Christopher Columbus was a real person, in addition to just the "historical Christopher Columbus."
But it appears proponents of the "historical Jesus Christ" can't present evidence for even a single critical aspect of the Jesus Christ legend. That, along with the general ridiculous and condescending tone of their arguments, is for the most part what leads me to believe that there was no "historical Jesus Christ."
I'm just arguing that the character Jesus Christ can weakly be traced to a real person about which we can derive a very limited history.
Well, ok. What real person, specifically, and what is the evidence upon which we can derive this history?
Finally, on trying to support extraordinary premises on insufficient evidence:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 4:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 5:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 268 of 560 (617946)
05-31-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2011 4:50 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
Is there really even a consensus then?
I have no idea but I'm willing to accept there is on good faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 269 of 560 (617947)
05-31-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by crashfrog
05-31-2011 5:12 PM


Re: Names and Roman Records
Right. So, there's no "historical Dexter." Is the difference between Dexter and Dracula the fact that Dexter was likely inspired by a number of individuals whom we probably couldn't identify and Dracula was likely inspired by a specific individual, known to exist, who we can identify with a fair degree of certainty?
Pretty much.
No, because there really was a guy who sailed from Portugal with the Pinta, the Nina, and the Santa Maria, and whose name when Anglicized from the Latinization really does wind up being "Christopher Columbus.
Right. So the fact there wasn't really a guy with the name Christopher Columbus is irrelvant to the discussion about the historical Christopher Columbus.
But it appears proponents of the "historical Jesus Christ" can't present evidence for even a single critical aspect of the Jesus Christ legend. That, along with the general ridiculous and condescending tone of their arguments, is for the most part what leads me to believe that there was no "historical Jesus Christ."
Fair enough. You don't accept the evidence, I get that. I'm just pointing out that the name issue is a non-issue but you keep bringing it up for some reason.
Well, ok. What real person, specifically, and what is the evidence upon which we can derive this history?
Yeshua of Nazareth, Jewish preacher. The five Gospels and Paul. You don't think that's sufficient, I get that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 05-31-2011 5:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 560 (617948)
05-31-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Jazzns
05-31-2011 5:08 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
Why does that methodology negate the usefulness of a null hypothesis? Of course we should look at the evidence and look for the best explanation.
One thing that historians do is propose explanations for various historical phenomena. The early Christian beliefs and practices are such phenomena as require explaining.
I believe that there are many ways to explain these things, and I think any reasonable historian would agree with me that any phenomenon can be explained in pretty much any imaginable way. The issue for historical study, then, is to sift through the explanations offered and rank them according to their explanatory power (how much they explain) and their probability (how plausible they are and how many unevidenced assumption they might require).
One way of explaining some of the early Christians' peculiar beliefs and practices is to propose the existence of an historical Jesusa real man likely named the Aramaic/Hebrew equivalent of Jesus or something similar whose followers believed to be the Messiah and who was executed by crucifixion or some very similar method.
Now, one could go further in to the probability and explanatory power of this explanation. But since no one has yet offered up an alternative explanation, then there isn't much reason to bother rating it, since it remains the best one by virtue of being the only one. I can certainly say that it is not at all unreasonable that such a person would have existed, and his existence serves to explain a good deal of early Christianity's most peculiar beliefs and practices.
If someone were to offer up a different explanation, then we could rank them according to their probability and explanatory power and attempt to judge which one might be the better explanation. Until that happens, though, the Historical Jesus hypothesis stands uncontested, and thus remains the most acceptable available explanation, and so is the one that reasonable people will accept (reasonable people accept that which is most acceptablenaturally).
In this sense, an historical Jesus actually is something of the 'default' position.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2011 5:08 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Jazzns, posted 05-31-2011 6:05 PM Jon has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024