|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1723 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Thanks to everybody who participated, and I apologize for my sudden and prolonged absence, but I think it's time that I dropped this - we're all just repeating the same claims.
I continue to think that much of the disagreement here stems from the desire by some to apply special rules about when its appropriate to conclude that legendary figures really existed specifically and only to the Jesus Christ situation. (In that sense, it's like a kind of agnosticism.) It would have been nice to have seen some of this "evidence for Jesus" that everybody keeps talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
It would have been nice to have seen some of this "evidence for Jesus" that everybody keeps talking about. For those who might still be interested, let me quote part of a topic that I started over at FRDB:
quote: These are some of the 'evidences' for an historical Jesus. They've been mentioned several times in this thread already, but never laid out quite so plainly (see Message 230). The challenge, in the other thread, was for folk who deny the historicity of Jesus to fill the blanks in with non-Jesus explanations, the point being that any alternative position to the Historical Jesus hypothesis would have to be capable of explaining these matters. For now, it appears as though an historical Jesus explains all of these phenomena while remaining the least assumptive and, therefore, most probable explanation. So if there are any ahistoricists still interested in this thread, perhaps they may be able to come forward with what they feel to be the alternative explanations for these phenomena. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1723 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
What an incredible example of the mental "evidence lacuna" I've been talking about - Jon's done us all the favor of actually putting underscores where the evidence was supposed to go!
These are some of the 'evidences' for an historical Jesus. But none of this is evidence for a historical Jesus. They're just characteristics of the Jesus mythology. None of these things require that there actually have been a real human being on whom the mythology is based. A mythological Jesus would later be called "Christ", same as a real one. (The people who would later do so, after all, would have no way to tell the difference - just as you have no way, now.) And after Jesus was made up, there would be people who believed that a person called "Jesus" lived and died and lived. They would believe that because someone told them and they believed it, same as now. If I tell you a lie at 2:00 PM and you believe it, then it's a matter of fact that before 2:00 there's nobody who believes my story (because you haven't heard it yet) and then after 2:00 there's at least one person who believes my story. That's not evidence that supports the veracity of the story, and nothing is necessary to explain this sudden change in the number of people who believe the story besides the fact that 2:00 PM is when I told the lie. It's abundantly obvious, Jon, that you have no idea what evidence actually is. Absolutely nothing you've put forward here is an example of it. It's just a description of aspects of the Jesus mythology that are as easily explained by the invention of a mythological Jesus as anything else - if not more so. Here's a hint, Jon - what other form of "evidence" takes the form of underscore blanks into which the reader is asked to insert whatever they choose?
the point being that any alternative position to the Historical Jesus hypothesis would have to be capable of explaining these matters. What fills in the blanks better than "the actual historical Jesus" is "the Jesus stories were made up". (Try it- cut and paste the phrase in, and you'll see how easily all of this nonsense "evidence" is explained.) Invention by storytellers is such a common and mundane phenomenon that it's easily the more reasonable, more parsimonious explanation. As much as people are nipping at my heels about retarded irrelevancies like whether or not Confucius was actually called Confucius, nobody here thinks your evidence is at all compelling. It's the utter failure of historic Jesus proponents to actually present any evidence that is, perhaps, the greatest evidence of the nonexistence of Jesus. Jon's post is more correct than he could possibly know. The evidence for Jesus is best described as a series of underscored blanks - because there's absolutely nothing there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
You only push the matter further with such answers, Crash.
Now you must address the question of why these things were made up. Why were these things invented? Why did these Jews revolutionize their messianic thinking? And so the list goes on. It is with every blank you filled in with 'it was made up': it answers nothing but just pushes the questions back to something else. You cannot evade the questions... they know where you live. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1723 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Now you must address the question of why these things were made up. Why was Jesus Malverde made up? Why was John Frum made up? People make things up. They tell each other stories. A story that's told like it's true has more impact than one told like it's false; that's why your cousin's campfire stories always begin with "Now, this happened to a friend of a friend of mine..." When the only entertainment is story-telling, people reward good storytellers. There's a market incentive for good stories and the "Jesus" stories especially have always been crowd-pleasers - magic and miracles, good vs. evil, Jesus runs the moneylenders out of the temple (everybody hates moneylenders), and so on. I mean, you're on the record that most of Christianity is a later invention. You already agree that it's mostly stories. So what on Earth could possibly be the reason not to believe that it isn't just stories all the way down, too? What possible evidence is there that any of them have any basis in fact?
You cannot evade the questions... So stop evading the largest one! What's the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
It's nice to see that you don't have an answer, Crash.
Let me know when you come up with something better than 'People make things up'. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: You're going to have to offer more explanation than that.
quote: Why is it more parsimonious ? You still need an explanation for why those stories were made up, and you need an alternative story for the founding of Christianity and an explanation of why that was lost. Seems to me the idea that the Gospels were based on real events is more parsimonious just for that. In fact it's hard to see how anything could be more parsimonious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3969 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
PaulK writes:
You're going to have to offer more explanation of why more explanation than that is required. You're going to have to offer more explanation than that.It exactly meets the 'challenge' set by Jon. PaulK writes:
This seems a strange question. You still need an explanation for why those stories were made up, Why were the Harry Potter stories made up?Why were the Bilbo Baggins stories made up? Why were the Jesus stories made up? It seems less parsimonious that the answer to the first two (and many more like them) is: "Because people like fantastical stories.", but the answer to the last one has to be "Because a Jesus existed.".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: The challenge was to provide explanations. For instance John would describe the change in the view of the Messiah to be a reaction to Jesus' failure and death. How is it explained by "Jesus was made up" ?
quote: If you do not consider the relevant history or the usage of the writings your view might have merit. Unfortunately, ignoring these things is not rational. As Jon has pointed out there are features of the Gospels that seem inconvenient to the authors, or to go against views they would be expected to have. These features need to be explained. We need an explanation for the origin of Christianity, too. Why is it more parsimonious to assume some unknown origin than to accept that there is some basis to the claims of Early Christians ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3969 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
PaulK writes:
Well, the initial view of a messiah was made up and the subsequent view of a messiah was made up. The challenge was to provide explanations. For instance John would describe the change in the view of the Messiah to be a reaction to Jesus' failure and death. How is it explained by "Jesus was made up" ?This is similar to the initial view of Gollum as being a simple 'monster' that attacks Bilbo in The Hobbit, but who then develops into a more complex sympathetic character in LoTR. PaulK writes:
There is no relevant history of a Jesus, except in the bible. To include that circular argument is not rational. If you do not consider the relevant history or the usage of the writings your view might have merit. Unfortunately, ignoring these things is not rational. As Jon has pointed out there are features of the Gospels that seem inconvenient to the authors, or to go against views they would be expected to have. These features need to be explained. And you need an explanation of why the stories are not well written? Perhaps because there were many people making up different bits.This can often be seen in spin-off books from TV series. Authors have their own 'agenda' and will twist existing background stories to suit their wishes. PaulK writes:
I am not suggesting that the origin is unknown. I am suggesting that people made it all up. We need an explanation for the origin of Christianity, too. Why is it more parsimonious to assume some unknown origin than to accept that there is some basis to the claims of Early Christians ?There is no evidence for the claims of early christians in relation to a Jesus, But there is plenty of evidence of people making stuff up. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7
|
quote: Of course, you just made that up... Or in other words just asserting that something was made up without understanding what happened is more a cheap excuse than a good explanation.
quote: I said "relevant history", not "history of Jesus". The history of Christianity is relevant, and certainly the context of the Gospel stories needs to be taken into account.
quote: I said nothing about the quality of the writing. I am more interested in aspects of the story that appear to go against the agenda of the Gospel authors. For instance - to reuse a point made earlier - the Gospel authors are not happy to let the Romans take the blame for Jesus' execution. Why would they make that up ? Or are you proposing that the story predates Mark ?
quote: But apparently you don't know who or when or why. Or how the Gospels came to be accepted as fact.
quote: There is plenty of evidence that not all documents are made up, too. Perhaps you would like to explain why we should assume "made up" as a default.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ScientificBob Member (Idle past 4519 days) Posts: 48 From: Antwerp, Belgium Joined: |
When you said to Crash that it just pushes the question further back into "why were these stories invented", did you realise that the exact same reasoning would follow for... EVERY religion out there?
Why was Shiva made up? Thor? Zeus? Allah? Quetzalcoatl? Answer those questions, and you'll have your answer to "why was jezus made up?".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3969 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
PaulK writes: Yes, I made up an explanation - based on the massive amounts of evidence that we have the people make up fantastical stories. Of course, you just made that up... Or in other words just asserting that something was made up without understanding what happened is more a cheap excuse than a good explanation.This is compared to the zero non-biblical evidence we have for a historical Jesus. PaulK writes: My last post answered these questions: Badly made up stories are made up badly.
I said nothing about the quality of the writing. I am more interested in aspects of the story that appear to go against the agenda of the Gospel authors. For instance - to reuse a point made earlier - the Gospel authors are not happy to let the Romans take the blame for Jesus' execution. Why would they make that up ? Or are you proposing that the story predates Mark ? PaulK writes: Did your parents conceive you? Do you know where or when or how or why? No? Then clearly you were not conceived.
Panda writes: But apparently you don't know who or when or why. I am not suggesting that the origin is unknown. I am suggesting that people made it all up. PaulK writes: And the reason they became accepted as fact is because people are frequently ignorant, superstitious and irrational. Or how the Gospels came to be accepted as fact.Lots of people believe (as fact) that you will get 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror. That doesn't make it even slightly true. But this is off-topic, I expect. PaulK writes: Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is plenty of evidence that not all documents are made up, too. Perhaps you would like to explain why we should assume "made up" as a default.'Made up by people' is the simple, common, parsimonious choice. Even non-biblical documents have to be validated. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ScientificBob Member (Idle past 4519 days) Posts: 48 From: Antwerp, Belgium Joined:
|
quote: Because there no other source besides the bible to be found about this jezus character, that's why. Because the only "evidence" people can come up with is essentially a circular argument, that's why.
quote: Maybe they truelly believed it.There are plenty of examples of people who believe the most inconvenient things that were essentially just a product of their imagination. There's even no reason to think that the people who made it up did so purposefully. The psychiatric wards are filled with people who are convinced to be the target of a worldwide conspiracy. This is very inconvenient for them and it completely disrupts their lives. But they have no evidence for it. They made it up. I'm not suggesting that the first christians were psychotic or whatever... Only pointing out that this would really really NOT be without precedent. The "i can't imagine why they would make it up" argument is not a good reason to simply accept the claims are truthfull. In fact, it's a fallacy. Not to mention that if that is the standard to accept claims, you'ld be required to accept every single religion out there. Why was Islam made up? Or Hinduism? Scientology? Mormonism?Mormons believe Jezus came to America. Why would they make that up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 4168 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined:
|
Sorry for skipping some earlier replies. I got a bit busy. I just wanted to point out this.
I said nothing about the quality of the writing. I am more interested in aspects of the story that appear to go against the agenda of the Gospel authors. For instance - to reuse a point made earlier - the Gospel authors are not happy to let the Romans take the blame for Jesus' execution. Why would they make that up ? Or are you proposing that the story predates Mark ? It is perfectly possible, perhaps even likely, that the politics of the crucifixion blame are an artifact of the lateness of the gospels. Its hard to keep track of all the Biblical edits but I seem to recall some that were designed to soften the imposition that it was Rome who killed Jesus. So while I have come to see the presence of some counter-intuitively motivated writing may be a good argument for historicity, I don't think this is one of those cases. Thanks, If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024