Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 376 of 560 (620658)
06-19-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Panda
06-19-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
quote:
Please explain why the person that the jesus character was based on doesn't matter when discussing the jesus character.
This topic is about the historical Jesus. If there wasn't one that's all that need be said.
quote:
From what I've heard they aren't dodgy.
There are definite similarities.
They may not all be as clear-cut as some mithra's supporters might want, but they still exist.
It's the dating that is the problem. Roman Mithraism - which is what you are talking about - shows up relatively late in the 1st Century. If you can't show that the Mithraists had the idea first, the question of who copied who (if there was any copying) is still open.
quote:
Interestingly though, there is a more varied selection of archaeological evidence for mithra than for jesus.
I presume you mean for the Roman Mithras cult over the Christianity of the same era. Mithras was never a real person.
quote:
Though it seems that if the jesus character is based on a character in a pre-dating religion, then you would rather not discuss it.
I don't want to discuss it in this thread, because it would be off-topic.
quote:
But if jesus is a copy of a different character then you need to identify that historical character, as there is no actual historical jesus.
Only if that historical character is close enough to Jesus to count. Horus certainly doesn't, and Roman Mithraism seems to be VERY loosely based on older Mithras worship, so the original of Mithras would likewise be way too old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Panda, posted 06-19-2011 1:22 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Panda, posted 06-19-2011 3:30 PM PaulK has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 377 of 560 (620659)
06-19-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 12:57 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
But a figure who did absolutely nothing that would have brought him to the attention of mythmakers as someone on which to base mythology by definition can't have been the basis for the mythology.
Huh? Who said that this was one of the defining characteristics of the historical Jesus?
Are you just making up the strawmen as you go along?
No, it's not. It's never ridiculous to ask what evidence supports a claim. That's the basis of rationality, a practice which you have apparently abandoned.
There are canonical and non-canonical sources that talk about Jesus; they very widely in their theological take on him, but they all have some very basic things in common, e.g., they agree that he was executed.
Yes! They should be ignored because they are utterly untrustworthy, mutually plagaristic, cannot corroborate themselves, were written long decades after the events they supposedly chronicle, and are full of impossible invention and embellishment. The Gospels are the testimony of liars. All of this was covered more than a hundred posts ago, you know, when you thought this whole topic was beneath "reasonable people."
Well, you just described pretty much every historical document ever written. So, what do you expect to be left?
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 12:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 11:32 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 378 of 560 (620660)
06-19-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
The earliest date given for the authorship of Mark is 50 AD, and the date given for the authorship of the Pauline epistles is 51 AD.
Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Why not bother actually learning something about the topic before spitting off stupidity?
It is almost unanimous amongst serious scholars that Mark was written during or shortly after the first revolt, around 70 a.d..
Anything with a connection to the Bible must be disregarded absent some kind of real evidence.
That's nice. You want to throw out all the evidence and then complain that there isn't any. That's nice.
Let us know when you're ready to be serious.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 11:34 PM Jon has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 379 of 560 (620661)
06-19-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by PaulK
06-19-2011 1:53 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:
This topic is about the historical Jesus. If there wasn't one that's all that need be said.
Since you seem to accept that there wasn't an historical jesus, I guess this discussion is closed.
No?
Then we should discuss how older religions helped define the jesus character.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 1:53 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 3:55 PM Panda has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 380 of 560 (620663)
06-19-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Panda
06-19-2011 3:30 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
quote:
Since you seem to accept that there wasn't an historical jesus, I guess this discussion is closed.
Well it would be if you were right. But you're wrong. So it isn't over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Panda, posted 06-19-2011 3:30 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Panda, posted 06-19-2011 7:22 PM PaulK has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 381 of 560 (620665)
06-19-2011 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 1:22 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
The earliest date given for the authorship of Mark is 50 AD, and the date given for the authorship of the Pauline epistles is 51 AD.
I have to say that I have never seen a date for Mark so early. The date for Paul is what is commonly accepted. Even if Mark was 50 AD, that hardly gives time for Paul to hear of, gain access to, read, and finally reject the majority of Mark in favour of his own invented Jesus theology, then nip around the middle east establishing churches, so that he can write to them in 51 AD.
The dating of these books, frankly, is a mess, given how they were later edited and altered. There's literally nothing that can give us any confidence that the books of the Bible are accurately reporting any real history; they corrupt everything they touch. Anything with a connection to the Bible must be disregarded absent some kind of real evidence.
Am I the only one that detects a hint of fanaticism here? Even though I am now an atheist, I retain an interest in the historical and archaeological aspects of Judaism and Christianity. I can certainly entertain the idea of Jesus being entirely invented, and it would be interesting to see how that would fit around the historical charatcters of Peter, Paul, James, etc, and their rifts. But I think it is more likely that there was a historical Jesus, and the mythical elements of the story grew, as they say, in the telling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 1:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by crashfrog, posted 06-20-2011 12:02 AM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 382 of 560 (620666)
06-19-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 12:49 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
Relevance? This topic is about Jesus, not Mohammed.
How historians investigate ancient figures is kind of relevant, I would have thought.
Yes, the evidence for Jesus is in the small collection of documents about Jesus that exist, most of which are the gospels.
But this is circular.
It is not circular, since it does not go around in a circle. There is a pile of evidence for Jesus' existence, and historians sift through that evidence to see if anything can be said to be reliable evidence supporting his existence.
Claims can't be "self-evidenced"
But claims regarding ancient figures do rely almost solely on documents written about those ancient figures at or around the time of their existence. Then there is the work of the historian to try and figure out what is propaganda, religious dogma and what might actually be true, or more exactly, what can be called historical.
Take it this way. You don't, for instance, take the claims of the Gospel and Paul about the resurrection at face value, even though they're in unanimous agreement that it happened. Regardless of its appearance in multiple "separate" Gospels and the work of Paul, you take it as a single claim that is supported by no evidence.
And you can't think of a reason why the claim 'A man was executed and came back to life' might require higher evidential support than 'A man was executed'? I suppose 'I saw a cat yesterday' is a claim that requires the same degree of evidence as 'I saw a hippogryph yesterday'.
Ergo, the flaw in your historicism is made apparent.
It's not my historicism. It's the likes of Gza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, Ernest Renan and so on and so forth.
The evidence for the existence of Socrates is the claim that Socrates existed (by Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes).
Is the evidence for Santa Claus the claim (by 7-year-olds) that Santa Claus exists?
No, and nor am I proposing the beliefs of present day children are the evidence for the historical Jesus. I don't know that exact details of the evidence for Nikolaos of Myra but I suspect a lot of it is in the written claims made by other people, as is also the case with Socrates. Or did you think that Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes referred to an assortment of modern 7-year olds?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 12:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by crashfrog, posted 06-20-2011 12:00 AM Modulous has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 560 (620671)
06-19-2011 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 12:49 PM


Methodology
You don't, for instance, take the claims of the Gospel and Paul about the resurrection at face value, even though they're in unanimous agreement that it happened. Regardless of its appearance in multiple "separate" Gospels and the work of Paul, you take it as a single claim that is supported by no evidence.
The goal is not to determine whether every claim is true or false; the goal is to look for the best explanations behind the claims. Sometimes the best explanation is that the claim is true or mostly based on truth. Other times there are better explanations.
In the case of the resurrection reports, the better explanation isn't that it actually happened. In the case of some of the other material, however, the better explanation may easily be that the events described actually happened.
This is based on established methodologies developed and advanced by the scholars Mod cited in the previous post.
What are your methodologies? Why should we use them? How do they lead to better explanations?
Do you have any methodology in mind for sorting out which explanations are to be preferred over others?
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 12:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 384 of 560 (620672)
06-19-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by PaulK
06-19-2011 3:55 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:
Well it would be if you were right. But you're wrong. So it isn't over.
Then we should discuss how older religions helped define the jesus character.
(All you had to do was read all of my last post and we could have skipped this step.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 3:55 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2011 1:21 AM Panda has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 385 of 560 (620679)
06-19-2011 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by Jon
06-19-2011 3:22 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
Who said that this was one of the defining characteristics of the historical Jesus?
Well, you did, when you signed on to defend the notion of a historical Jesus who didn't do anything "Jesus-y."
No, it's not. It's never ridiculous to ask what evidence supports a claim. That's the basis of rationality, a practice which you have apparently abandoned.
There are canonical and non-canonical sources that talk about Jesus; they very widely in their theological take on him, but they all have some very basic things in common, e.g., they agree that he was executed.
Total non sequitor, so I'll repeat the point: It's never ridiculous to ask what evidence supports a claim.
Well, you just described pretty much every historical document ever written.
Another often-repeated lie by the Historical Jesus side: "every source is as bad as the Bible." But frankly that's just not true. For instance the Magna Carta isn't
quote:
utterly untrustworthy, mutually plagaristic, cannot corroborate themselves, were written long decades after the events they supposedly chronicle, and are full of impossible invention and embellishment.
Neither is the US Constitution, the Code of Hammurabi, or Plutarch's Histories. Those are just examples: many historical documents are well-sourced and documentary, and the mundane claims they make can be taken more or less at face value, especially where they describe events that other independent sources also describe.
That's just not the case with the Gospels and the Pauline epistles. If the Gospels and Paul are the only source of knowledge you have about Jesus then you know absolutely nothing at all, because they're the testimony of liars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by Jon, posted 06-19-2011 3:22 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 386 of 560 (620680)
06-19-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Jon
06-19-2011 3:26 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
Bullshit. Utter bullshit.
Documented fact.
It is almost unanimous amongst serious scholars
By which of course you mean "scholars who believe in the existence of a historical Jesus Christ." For real scholars who follow evidence there's evidence, apparently, for an authorship of Mark at least as early as 50 AD.
You want to throw out all the evidence and then complain that there isn't any.
What evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Jon, posted 06-19-2011 3:26 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Jon, posted 06-20-2011 12:19 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 395 by caffeine, posted 06-20-2011 7:40 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 387 of 560 (620681)
06-19-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by PaulK
06-19-2011 1:47 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
The more independent sources existed
But the problem is just that - "Q" doesn't exist. You can't put forward sources that don't exist as "independent support" for your claims.
Here's a hint, Paul - when you're making up sources that would conveniently corroborate your claims if they existed you're not actually providing support for your claims - you're engaged in patent nonsense.
Do you expect me to be convinced by a source that doesn't exist? Honestly?
You are at least required to show that you ARE making the more parsimonious claim
Which I've done. The more parsimonious claim is the one that assumes the existence of the least number of entities the existence of which is not required. Since the "Mythical Jesus" position has one less unnecessary entity, it's the more parsimonious of the claims. QED.
The argument, as I have heard it is that Tacitus would have had access to official records (which appears to be true) and could have dug out the record of Jesus' crucifixion.
The records you previously claimed didn't exist? How did Tacitus have access to them if they didn't exist, and if he did refer to records, why didn't he say that? Again, your recourse is to imaginary sources. How can you expect that to be convincing?
As I say, I don't believe it, but I can't disprove it.
Why are you putting forward arguments that you don't believe? Can we put this line of argumentation to bed, then, since I don't believe it either? Isn't it the obligation of Tacitus defenders to put forward some kind of evidence that Tacitus actually saw some records of the crucifixion of Jesus? And if they can't meet that obligation don't we have the right not to believe them, and consider their claims of Tacitus having unique and direct evidence of the existence and crucifixion of Jesus to be unfounded? And if they're unfounded, how can Tacitus be support for the existence of Jesus?
Except for the fact that the text does not support your interpretation.
Except that it does, as I've demonstrated. The context is quite clear. Do you need it quoted again?
I've said that one of the two possible references is at least partly Christian
So, not written by Josephus but put forward as though he did.
That's the precise definition of a "forgery."
So your reason for expecting this evidence, given that Jesus existed is...that you expect this evidence if Jesus existed.
Yes - that it's reasonable to expect some actual evidence if Jesus actually existed. Not imaginary evidence from imaginary sources, which is all you've been able to provide.
All we need to work out is whether it is likely that such a person existed.
No. Wrong. What we need to work out is whether there is any actual evidence that such a person existed and was the basis of the Jesus mythology.
Simply for completeness I am eliminating things that you might consider "extraordinary" in your argument.
And where did I ever indicate that I considered it "extraordinary" that Christianity existed? Please be specific.
You're the one taking the position that the Gospels MUST be complete fiction.
Yes, but you misunderstand the term "fiction." I don't mean to imply that the authors of the Gospels were the authors of the fiction - they were merely its recorders. Similarly, if I dictate a fiction story to someone who, for whatever reason, believes it and writes it down, the story they've written - that they're the "author" of - is a complete fiction, but they're not fiction authors.
I take the tentative position that the Gospels are based on a real person, who admittedly did no real miracles (but may have faked some, like a modern faith healer), did not come back from the dead - and who probably wasn't of Davidic descent or born in Bethlehem either to name two more differences.
And how would the Gospels be based on such an individual? Please be specific.
Te question is whether the story was merely exaggerated and embellished (admittedly to quite a great degree) or whether it was replaced by a complete fiction and lost as you claim.
But again, you're not making any sense. What story was "replaced"? If there was no historical Jesus then there was no real origin Christianity to "replace." So what could possibly have been replaced?
Your claim is utterly without sense, here. Please continue to elaborate so I can understand it.
Since it is almost inevitable that exaggeration and embellishment would occur
I would go so far as to say that it's a certainty that exaggeration and embellishment occurred. Ergo, it's most likely to assume that the exaggeration and embellishment parts go so far as to include his actual existence. Once you're lying about nearly everything, why not lie about the rest?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 1:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2011 1:58 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 396 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2011 7:43 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 388 of 560 (620682)
06-20-2011 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Modulous
06-19-2011 4:15 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
How historians investigate ancient figures is kind of relevant, I would have thought.
I'm aware of how historians investigate ancient figures, and the way they do it most definitely not by taking the self-serving claims of holy books at credulous face value.
There is a pile of evidence for Jesus' existence
No, there's not. There's a pile of claims of Jesus's existence. And the best evidence you seem to have for the veracity of those claims is "why would first-century mythmakers lie"? Pardon me if I'm not as credulous.
But claims regarding ancient figures do rely almost solely on documents written about those ancient figures at or around the time of their existence.
But nothing written about Jesus was written at or around the time of his existence. It was all written decades after he supposedly existed.
Placing a fictional character in the near past? A common technique in mythmaking. It lends verisimilitude. But it indicates that the figure under discussion is a myth, not a historical person. That's why Jesus stories and myths were able to spread so rapidly - they weren't tied down to people's actual memories of the events surrounding a real person.
The pattern of writings about Jesus is clear to anyone who's made a study of mythology and mythmaking, as I have. Topologically it's identical to other examples of mythological figure invention that spread by word of mouth, such as Jesus Malverde and John Frum. Ergo it's most reasonable to assume that, like Jesus Malverde and John Frum, Jesus was a mythological invention, not a mythological inspiration.
And you can't think of a reason why the claim 'A man was executed and came back to life' might require higher evidential support than 'A man was executed'?
But again the existence of men executed by Romans don't lend credence to the Jesus mythology, they merely lend verisimilitude. After all, none of those men wound up being the central focus of a major world religion. That's a bit more extraordinary than just "getting killed by Romans" and it creates a greater burden of evidence.
It's insufficient just to demonstrate that the Romans killed a guy named "Josh." You have to provide evidence that demonstrates that the Romans killed a guy named "Josh" (you know what I mean) and that someone based a major world religion on him.
It's the likes of Gza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, Ernest Renan and so on and so forth.
And what evidence to Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, and Ernest Renan offer for the historical existence of Jesus? Please be specific.
No, and nor am I proposing the beliefs of present day children are the evidence for the historical Jesus.
You've missed the point completely. If first century authors can make self-evident claims, why can't modern children?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Modulous, posted 06-19-2011 4:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Jon, posted 06-20-2011 12:29 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 402 by Modulous, posted 06-20-2011 9:40 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 389 of 560 (620683)
06-20-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by cavediver
06-19-2011 4:12 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
But I think it is more likely that there was a historical Jesus, and the mythical elements of the story grew, as they say, in the telling.
And why couldn't his existence be one of the first elements to grow in the telling?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by cavediver, posted 06-19-2011 4:12 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Coyote, posted 06-20-2011 12:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 390 of 560 (620684)
06-20-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 11:34 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
Documented fact.
Then provide the documentation.
By which of course you mean "scholars who believe in the existence of a historical Jesus Christ." For real scholars who follow evidence there's evidence, apparently, for an authorship of Mark at least as early as 50 AD.
You might want to cite those scholars.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 11:34 PM crashfrog has 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