Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 514 of 560 (621173)
06-24-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 9:40 AM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
Named Jesus?
He is said to be named Jesus, given the transition between languages. Without having the Latin alphabet or sounds it would have been written and pronounced differently. The 'J' would have been closer to a 'Y' (or an 'I' as the Romans had it), and the 'us' ending is a European construction just like with Confucius. We actually have an idea what the original name was, since the authors tell us what it means in Aramaic, and we can translate Aramaic. This gives us 'Yeshua' or 'Yeshoshua', if we translate this into English without going through Greek and Latin first it is 'Joshua'.
Did miracles?
No. As with all historical figures - the miraculous and the supernatural are not considered historical. Regardless of the claims in our sources, we don't consider the Pharoahs to be actual deities.
Was king of the Jews?
You know that Jesus was not king of the Jews in the Bible?
Was crucified?
Generally this is accepted.
Rose from dead?
No historical character, regardless of the insistence of sources, is thought to have had supernatural powers.
Look at every single saint that church has canonized. All of them are said to have performed at least one or two miracles. While their personhood is considered historical in many cases, the miraculous claims are not considered historical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 9:40 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 11:51 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 527 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 5:00 PM Modulous has replied

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


(1)
Message 516 of 560 (621199)
06-24-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 11:51 AM


Jesus and the technicolor evidence
Since 'the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead?", isn't Jon's position then his position must entail at least one of those criteria. If his position does not entail any of those criteria then it is at least part of his position.
Crucified and named Jesus, from reading his posts.
Again all Crash and I want is some evidence for a historical Jesus. That a historical Jesus is a very good explanation for the Jesus movement is not evidence.
Evidence for a historical Jesus please.
I cannot give you scientific evidence. I can only give you historical evidence. And that is in historical documents. Those documents have been presented as the sources for historical information. They are treated skeptically, but after historical analysis it is possible to infer some bits of information and then use local cultural knowledge and the like to build up a character called 'historical jesus'. Does the historical jesus really refer to a real person? Well, there's plenty of philosophy of history in that question but there is scant evidence for the existence of a lot of ancient figures but various arguments can be put forth to sway opinion one way or the other. Was Socrates real, or was he just used as a Platonic Ideal Teacher? Was Mohammed a real person, or was he an invention to shift attention from the real brains behind the operation?
So, no, there is no definitive evidence. There's the documents about Jesus, followed by a series of arguments about what those documents can tell us about what was going on back then.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 11:51 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 2:23 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 518 of 560 (621221)
06-24-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 2:23 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
No, there is no historical evidence. Historical evidence for the existence would be contemporary sources, original writings, multiple independent attestations from contemporaries.
That would be primary historical evidence. Secondary evidence, the kind that we have regarding Jesus, is still considered historical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 2:23 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:38 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 520 of 560 (621241)
06-24-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 3:38 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
The evidence is not historical it is anecdotal. There is a huge difference.
In what way is it anecdotal that prohibits it from also being considered secondary source material?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:38 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:49 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 522 of 560 (621243)
06-24-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 3:49 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
A secondary source refers to a primary source. Without a primary source there is no secondary source.
Did you read the definition of a secondary source?
A secondary source relates information originally presented elsewhere. Are you saying that the Gospels are original compositions, not based on information that predates them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:49 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:59 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 528 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 5:04 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 538 of 560 (621493)
06-26-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 527 by crashfrog
06-24-2011 5:00 PM


miracles and names
I don't think most people consider "Joshua" and "Jesus" to be the same name, frankly. Even in the Bible they're not the same name.
Oh well, now you mention most people's view of etymology of an ancient Aramaic name that has been translated into Greek and then into Latin before being put into English, it all becomes clear! We all know how most people are a reliable source of information about such things....
Jesus only appears in modern translations of the Bible (abe: there is a Yeshoshua in the Bible, but in English editions he is called Joshua, in Latin this is written as Iosue compare this with Jesus who is Iesu in the Latin (further edit, in the Greek Septuagint the Joshua of the Old Testament is called ιησους which is Iēsous, which is Jesus). It isn't in the original manuscripts. You might as well say that most people can't see the connection between the name Confucius and K'ung-tzu, and it would have the same rhetorical weight. Indeed, many people don't think there is any link between the name 'Ian' and the name 'John' but there is.
The Arabs call him Isa, and they refer to Ibrahim. The Jews don't refer to a guy called Moses. The HNV tells us about the children of 'Yisra'el,' and some guy called 'Moshe'.
But here's the problem. You don't have any explanation for how "Yeshua", who did no miracles, came to be revered as "Jesus", who did do miracles, except for that there was a great deal of fabrication, lying, mythmaking, and storytelling involved in the origin of Christianity and the Jesus mythology.
As there are saints that are considered historical by secular historians but are given supernatural powers by the religious. The explanation is quite simple: People imbue mundane people with supernatural powers. He became revered as 'Jesus' when the Greeks, who do not have the same character set as the Aramaics translated his name so they used using their 'I' and the Latins followed suit. This was then transformed into a 'J' in later translations to be pronounced presumably as 'Y' in the same sense that Jehovah is a modern translation of Yahweh.
...there's no evidence to suggest where to draw the line about what parts are myth and what parts are history.
Yeah, history is kind of like that. But there are arguments as to why some things can be considered historical and other things can be dismissed.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 5:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2011 1:28 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024