|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3972 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Jon writes:
Let the equivocation begin!!
There's a reason I put 'Messiah' in quotes: to recognize the very fact that despite the claims made, the people in question were not actual Messiahs. Jon writes:
I hope you thanked the person that explained it to you.
But then again, that is obvious to anyone who isn't being a troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3972 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Those historical accounts also need to be verified, or they are given the weight they deserve of "might be true - might not be true". Obviously then, the evidence that people also write historical accounts, and stories which are elaborated historical accounts is evidence against your hypothesis, then. Perhaps you would like to explain why you did not take this into account.Those documents which have fantastical elements are considered to be fiction. Historians do not believe that the Homer's odyssey is an accurate historical document. Perhaps you would like to explain why other historical documents need to prove their veracity but the bible is exempt?
PaulK writes:
I don't know what their agendas were. In other words you have to assume that they made up things contrary to their own agendas. WHich goes against what you said earlier.Do you? PaulK writes:
Please show me what is not explained by "It was made up". I am not using lack of evidence against your hypothesis (although you have nothing much) I am pointing out that you haven't got much of an explanation. This is why the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus is better than your hypothesis - it really explains more evidence (as opposed to proposing ad hoc explanations)All you seem to have so far is that you can't believe that people would make up a religion. But I am fairly sure that you don't believe that all religions are true - therefore some of them must be made up. Paulk writes:
What story is that?
But the Gospels would be competing with the real story of how Christianity arose. What happened to that story ? Have you any evidence for your explanation of that ? Paulk writes:
But when that document starts ascribing to supernatural events, it is making extraordinary claims. But there are no extraordinary claims being made here. That an ancient document should be based on true history is not extraordinary at all. We don't read about George and The Dragon and then conclude that dragons existed. We don't even conclude that George existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: The first misses the point that the Bible is a collection of works, fails to deal with the possible references in Josephus and Tacitus and would not be a rational argument even if it were entirely correct. The second has already been shown to be false in this discussion.
quote: That isn't a reason to make things up.
quote: Of course that isn't even an accurate presentation of the argument. "It was so unpalatable to them that they invented excuses to try to defuse it" seems a pretty good argument against the idea that the Gospel writers made up the idea that Jesus was executed by the Romans (which doesn't mean it is true)
quote: You really need to deal with your addiction to strawmen. What's wrong with evaluating the evidence rather than taking a dogmatic hard line right from the start - as you are doing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - ordinary ones don't.
quote: Another silly comparison. After all I'm not saying that Christianity is true, or even that the Gospels are as reliable as the average ancient history. Just that there is probably a historical basis for the character of Jesus
quote: More accurately Joseph Smith made it up. But why not? He was starting his own take on Christianity, with his own made-up scriptures almost entirely set in the New World. How could he leave Jesus out of it? Putting words in Jesus' mouth is a pretty obvious tactic, too.Now, if the text had a bunch if excuses about how Jesus didn't really mean what he said, you might have something interesting. But even then it WOULD still qualify as an extraordinary claim, so you still wouldn't have a good parallel to the crucifixion argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
quote: Which still requires the story to be firmly established before Mark, which may be as early as 60AD. In fact, before Christianity took a pro-Roman (or maybe anti-Jewish) turn, which would probably start earlier than Mark.
quote: It's in Mark 15:6-15 and a quick check didn't find any suggestion that it was an interpolation. Later Gospels, especially Matthew go further, but it is right there in Mark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
The first misses the point that the Bible is a collection of works People keep repeating this but I don't see the relevance. It may be a "collection of works" but its a single thing. The different books of the Bible can't corroborate each other because the later books are based on the earlier ones. All the books of the Bible are the fruit of a single tree. It's a collection of works but not a collection of independent works, thus it's appropriate to treat it as a single source. But, of course, in the topsy-turvy world of "what's evidence for Jesus" multiple, contradicting retellings of a single story corrupted by transmission, translation, and outright serial fabrication are somehow "corroboration." If I tell a story to Alice, Bob, and Charlie, and then you come by later and want to have my story corroborated, Alice, Bob, and Charlie can't corroborate it because all they know is what I told them. And anything different they might say is either an artifact of their own recollection or new claims that they're making on their own. They can corroborate that I told the story but it's not in dispute that it is claimed that Jesus existed, what's in dispute is the veracity of that claim. Historical Jesus proponents seem to do everything they can to equivocate on those two very different claims. For instance, here:
fails to deal with the possible references in Josephus and Tacitus See, Josephus and Tacitus report claims by Christians that there was a man called Jesus; similarly, I might report claims that Hindus make about their god Vishnu or retell Hindu stories about that figure. It would be tiresome to continually preface each remark with "Hindus believe" so I might simply trust my audience to understand that I'm speaking from the perspective of what Hindus believe. But taken out of context, as PaulK takes it out of context, it might look like I was reporting my own personal knowledge of the doings of Vishnu, when of course I have no such knowledge. Similarly, neither Josephus nor Tacitus have any unique or individual knowledge of Jesus; its clear from context that they merely report the stories Christians tell about their Jesus. Therefore, Tacitus and Josephus are evidence only for the fact that first century Christians were claiming that Jesus existed, not that he actually did. That's a constant theme in Jesus apologism - equivocation on what is actually being claimed, and on what evidence presented is actually meant to substantiate. It's the kind of dishonesty that makes it impossible to take anything Jesus defenders say seriously.
"It was so unpalatable to them that they invented excuses to try to defuse it" seems a pretty good argument against the idea that the Gospel writers made up the idea that Jesus was executed by the Romans Only if you equivocate on "they". The "they" who made up that Jesus was killed by Roman by no means has to be the same person, or even the same type of person, as the person who tried to defuse Roman blame. We have no idea how the story might have spread, grown, and changed in the decades before the Jesus story was ever put to paper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
They led rebellions that were certain to give the Romans a reason to care. Well, yes, doing something a little over the top is sort of what is required to get some contemporary mention in history. Even then there is no guarantee that you won't end up the king who is just a name on a list compiled 100 years after you die.
Those are in no way like Jesus and refer more to what the Jews considered a real messiah to be, someone who would liberate them. That's just the thing: you can think someone's the Messiah before they do anything messianic; but you cannot rightly consider them to still be the Messiah once they clearly fail to live up to expectation, unless, of course, you radically alter your understanding of what it means to be a 'Messiah'. This is the appeal of the historical Jesus: the hypothesis simply explains this radical alteration of messianic understanding so well, and the character is so very fitting for the time and place that it requires quite an alternative to consider replacing the hypothesis. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1061 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
After all I'm not saying that Christianity is true... How can you argue for a historical jesus and NOT think xtianity is true? IF jeebus existed in the context the bible paints him, xtianity IS the one trve religion and all that. However, if the stories are based loosely on a bunch of different people or the jeebus guy didnt' do the alleged things the bible says, then it's all B.S. Secondly: why is it that it is "acceptable" for religion to have excuses for the lack of evidence as the only evidence. This thread reeks of all the flood and exodus threads, wherein, the only "evidence" provided is why there is no evidence..... Not once in this thread has anyone pointed to anything and said "THIS is a piece of hard evidence for the existence of jeebus". Instead, we have apologetics saying (for example) "well, they didn't record all the executions in that time" or "jeebus had such a small following that there would be no contempoorary evidence for him". Name ONE other subject where you would accept these lines of reasoning as evidence. "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Magnus Junior Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 1 Joined:
|
It always bothered me why gays exist if they dont naturally reproduce. If we believe Darwin, their gene pool will be weeded out. Religion offers no explaination. So how do we explain their enduring being? I read a book on the subject and it really got me thinking. {Content hidden. Way, way, way off-topic. Massively off-topic. Not even a vague connection to the topic. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Something to do with the message being off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
How can you argue for a historical jesus and NOT think xtianity is true? Because Christianity has almost nothing to do with Jesus. Clearly.
IF jeebus existed in the context the bible paints him But that is not the historical Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is an entirely different point than the historical Jesus.
Secondly: why is it that it is "acceptable" for religion to have excuses for the lack of evidence as the only evidence. It's not. And no one is making excuses for religion. We are, afterall, talking about history here.
This thread reeks of all the flood and exodus threads, wherein, the only "evidence" provided is why there is no evidence..... No. It doesn't.
Not once in this thread has anyone pointed to anything and said "THIS is a piece of hard evidence for the existence of jeebus". Because no such evidence exists; no one has suggested that such evidence does exist. We are all well aware of the circumstantial nature of the evidence.
Instead, we have apologetics saying (for example) "well, they didn't record all the executions in that time" I cannot speak for the apologists, but I can say that I never made this argument, nor have I yet to see it made in this thread.
Name ONE other subject where you would accept these lines of reasoning as evidence. They aren't evidence... so I cannot think of any. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1061 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Because Christianity has almost nothing to do with Jesus. Clearly. Wat?
But that is not the historical Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is an entirely different point than the historical Jesus. Sorry, not gonna cut it. Your religion is based on this jeebus fella, whose story is told in the bible and only the bible. If what your book says about this chap is untrue, where does that leave your religion? The base tenet of xtianity is "jesus saves if you ask him". Without jeebus, there IS no xtianity.
And no one is making excuses for religion. I've yet to see ANY real evidence for a historical jesus, but I HAVE seen a whole lot of reasons why the alleged evidence is not there. And yet, this thread is still going.......
Because no such evidence exists; no one has suggested that such evidence does exist. We are all well aware of the circumstantial nature of the evidence. Oh, sorry. I apologize. I thought you were arguing for the existence of an historical jesus. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Your religion is based on this jeebus fella Whose religion?
whose story is told in the bible and only the bible. New Testament Apocrypha If what your book says about this chap is untrue, where does that leave your religion? Who said it was untrue?
I thought you were arguing for the existence of an historical jesus. Huh? Of course not. I'm open to other possibilities; if only anyone would bother presenting some.
The base tenet of xtianity is "jesus saves if you ask him". We're not discussing the tenets of Christianity; if they become important in the conversation, then we certainly can talk about them, but they are not discussion points in themselves.
Without jeebus, there IS no xtianity. I doubt you even noticed it, but read literally this comment allows us to conclude that there was a Jesus since there is a Christianity. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1061 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
Whose religion? You've painted yourself (in my opinion at least) to be a christian. An odd christian, but a christian. Forgive me if I am wrong in saying so.
New Testament Apocrypha Ahh, books that didn't make it into the bible. Right. Moving along now....
Who said it was untrue? The fact that there is ZERO actual evidence for him and the fact that those of you who are claiming his historocity can only make excuses for why there is no contemporary evidence makes it untrue.
Huh? Of course not. I'm open to other possibilities; if only anyone would bother presenting some. They have been presented. You just don't want to hear it.
We're not discussing the tenets of Christianity.. Don't be dim, Jon. That is not why I mentioned that. Try reading the context.
I doubt you even noticed it, but read literally this comment allows us to conclude that there was a Jesus since there is a Christianity. Had I meant it literally, you'd be on to something.... except that you just said:
quote: So what does xtianity have to do with jeebus? "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
Do you have an actual position to present?
The argument from silence is an old ahistoricist PRATT. It'd really be nice to see something new and fresh. Perhaps taking your own crack at filling in the blanks in Message 287 would help move the discussion along. Jon Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1061 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Do you have an actual position to present? Yes: that jesus is a fictitious character and christians are mindless idiots for lapping it up.
The argument from silence is an old ahistoricist PRATT. Pardon me for being blunt, but what the fuck are you talking about?
Perhaps taking your own crack at filling in the blanks in Message 287 would help move the discussion along. Or, perhaps, you (being on the side of arguing for this jeebus fella) could provide some, ya know, evidence for his existence? I haven't enjoyed mad libs since Jr. High School. It's not hard, really. You are taking the position of "I believe this to be factual" and I don't believe you, what with not having provided any facts and all. Why is the onus on the non-believing crowd to prove you wrong? All it takes is something even minutely concrete and not heresay. I've read through this thread and followed it since it became active, hoping that someone of you jesus lovers would provide something indicative of some shred of evidence. You've all come up empty handed. The FSM (praise be upon his meatballs) is real. Prove he's not. Oh wait, we actually have pictures and writings of our prophet. Pastafarians: 1Christians: 0 "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
Too many posts to reply to all, so I am restartlng replies here.
quote: Different authors have different agendas, and may have different sources, The question id John's relation to the Synoptics and the origin of the 'Q' material need to be addressed, for instance. The Bible is NOT a single source and should not be treated as one.
quote: False. Tacitus refers to Jesus as a historical person. In my view he almost certainly got his information from Christian sources - however I have seen it argued that Tacitus used official sources, and although I found the argument unconvincing, I cannot disprove it.The Josephus references, if genuine (and I am undecided on that) also refer to Jesus as a historical person and Josephus is likely to have had Jewish sources to work with, and would not have to rely on Christians. And of course, they are references to Jesus outside of the Bible. quote: Of course this is nonsense. The only "they" I am talking about is the Gospel writers. And you implicitly accept the argument by arguing that that aspect of the story was invented earlier. But how does this work with your foolish version of parsimony ? Is there any difference between postulating an earlier inventor of a story and postulating a historical person the story is based on ? The number of persons is the same.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024