|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ScientificBob Member (Idle past 4513 days) Posts: 48 From: Antwerp, Belgium Joined: |
You're moving the goalposts. You said "no other sources" without restricting it to contemporary sources I'm not moving anything. I consider it a given that sources used as evidence for historical things are to be contemporary and independent.
They are desirable, certainly. However it is not rational to assume that a single source is false just because we have no others addressing the topic But that's exactly the issue at hand. You do NOT have a "single" source. You have NO sources (that are contemporary and independent). You only have baseless claims and anecdotal stuff that is written down at best decades after the facts and for the most part, more then a century after the fact - and written by people that are clearly biased towards the topic as well...They weren't writing down what they knew... they were writing down what they believed. It would be no different from Tom Cruise writing a book on Xenu, the galactic emperor.
If you can't come up with at least a plausible reason that is a weakness in your explanation That's not what I said, now is it?I was talking about a SPECIFIC reason. I can give you hundreds of plausible reasons. It's not like no human has ever made up a fictional character. Or are you saying that people NEVER do that? But you are clearly strongly prejudiced against the idea that there was a historical Jesus. No, I'm not. In fact, I couldn't care less. But when you want an accurate and intellectually honest depiction of history, you need to let the data speak.And there is no data whatsoever on a historical jezus. There is only data on a supernatural one: biblical mythology. I couldn't care less if there was or wasn't a historical jezus. Point me to a legit source and I'll happily accept it. Until then... why should I?
The very fact that you refuse to admit that the evidence exists People keep repeating that there is evidence, but fail to deliver it.The bible is NOT evidence. The bible is NOT contemporary or independent. Tacitus and Josephus are NOT contemporary AND they are only repeating what christians told them. That's not corroborating, that's merely repeating claims. There is NO evidence of a historical jezus whatsoever. Or at the very least: if there is, I haven't seen it.
If you can't see the difference between the Gospels and the Greek myths, you aren't looking very hard. And even the Greek myths contain some truth, Troy proves that I said Hercules, not Zeus. Maybe you should look harder into greek mythology.And Troy? Troy is a place. The bible mentions Jeruzalem. Marvel comics mention New York. So bloody what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Yes, further reading seems to suggest that Lao-zi should be down as 'disputed, quite probably mythical'. I also got his name wrong.
Regarding Wicca, I had a quick read, and it seemed there were a variety of people behind the religion. Gardner made it internationally popular through his writings, and heavily influenced the way people think about it, but he joined a little witches coven, so he can't really be called the founder. He's more or a Paul than a Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ScientificBob Member (Idle past 4513 days) Posts: 48 From: Antwerp, Belgium Joined: |
I didn't claim that they were contemporary and it makes sense that they wouldn't be independent. It would be followers that would be interested in recording something that would be maintained. Which is exactly why the bible isn't a credible source for the historical jesus. They were followers... off course they will say he existed...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
ScientificBob writes: They were followers... off course they will say he existed... Certainly, but they weren't born followers. They had to make a conscious decision to become followers and there had to be some reason for it. My only point was that there is no particularly good reason for those who weren't followers to record anything about Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1274 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
But that's exactly the issue at hand. You do NOT have a "single" source. You have NO sources (that are contemporary and independent). You only have baseless claims and anecdotal stuff that is written down at best decades after the facts and for the most part, more then a century after the fact - and written by people that are clearly biased towards the topic as well... The repeated claim seems to be that Jesus is treated differently from other historical characters, but this isn't true. There are many people whose historicity is widely accepted, despite the total absence of any evidence contemporary with their lives. Nothing that survives was written about Mohammed in his lifetime, nor Confucius. All the early sources on Mohammad are written by Muslims, and all the early sources on Confucius are written by Confucians. I'm not attempting to claim that the historical evidence for these two is less than that for Jesus - I don't know enough about it. It's simply that the insistence on contemporary written accounts is not the standard way we approach questions of historicity, nor does it make much sense for people like these for whom we shouldn't expect it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Certainly, but they weren't born followers. They had to make a conscious decision to become followers and there had to be some reason for it.
Yea like those who followed David Koresh, or those who follow Scientology lol The only reason they had was they where gullible. On the other hand they could have done what Muhammad has done wrote a book and said an angel brought it to him on a flying horse. Or basically make the whole thing up.
My only point was that there is no particularly good reason for those who weren't followers to record anything about Jesus. So you are saying a person who rose from the dead, preformed miracles... would not peak the interest of any scholar?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Real, historical people far outnumber mythical ones. The only ones we really have with mythical founders are the truly ancient ones, and it's possible these we only consider mythical since so much time has passed that the stories that have grown up around them have less connection to reality. One question: In how many of these belief systems is the recognized founder the same person as the one most chiefly venerated by the believers? Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So you are saying a person who rose from the dead, preformed miracles... would not peak the interest of any scholar? These qualities have NOTHING to do with the historical Jesus. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1717 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The inference that Jesus existed is based on weak evidence, and the conclusion is tentative. Then I apologize for having misunderstood you.
It seems to me that the consensus by relevant experts is that there is sufficient grounds to believe there was a historical Jesus and I'm happy to roll with that. I recognize as well that the consensus by experts is that he existed, but I've come to believe that there is insufficient evidence to justify that consensus. Therefore I reject it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1717 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Because if they were going to fabricate a messiah, it probably wouldn't have been someone that failed so miserably and all the other explanations this thread has detailed. But I don't contend that the authors of the Gospels "fabricated" a messiah, no more than Santa Claus was fabricated by 7-year-olds. I merely contend that they have no credibility on the subject, given that they fabricated so much else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1717 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There are many people whose historicity is widely accepted, despite the total absence of any evidence contemporary with their lives. Maybe it shouldn't be! But, again, none of those people are the Historical Jesus or anything similar. The degree to which the "Historical Jesus" position is treating historical standards of proof unfairly is by not recognizing the greater burden of proof necessary in the case of Jesus, as opposed to historicity which does recognize the greater burden of proof necessary to substantiate the historicity of Beowulf, Robin Hood, etc. Jesus is a character much more akin to Beowulf and Robin Hood than to Socrates or Ghengis Kahn. To treat Jesus the same as Socrates is to violate accepted principles of historicity (and logic.)
It's simply that the insistence on contemporary written accounts is not the standard way we approach questions of historicity It is, actually. It's just that the standard is so easily perverted by the bias of historians towards affirming their own views of history. The fact that the majority of "Jesus history scholars" are themselves nominal Christians is a pretty good reason to look at the issue without regard to the "expert consensus."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 235 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But I don't contend that the authors of the Gospels "fabricated" a messiah, no more than Santa Claus was fabricated by 7-year-olds. I merely contend that they have no credibility on the subject, given that they fabricated so much else. And the point is that some things don't look fabricated, that if they were fabricated we'd expect something different. I mean, I think everyone agrees that Plato made stuff up about Socrates to serve his own purposes but that doesn't mean we can't try and pick out what might be historical from what are Plato's inventions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1717 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Obviously you got ahead of yourself again, since I dealt with the possibility that Luke copied from Matthew. No, you just conclude that he did not. But you have no evidence that he did not.
And the copying - both from Mark and that proposed to be from 'Q' - is exact enough to indicate copying from a written document You can't possibly conclude that anything was copied "exactly" from the Q source unless you have the Q source text there with you to compare. What an absurdity - "clearly, it's an exact copy of something I've never seen!"
The argument is that Luke actively disagrees with Matthew - even in the placement of the alleged Q material. So he copied and disagreed! Just as I'm copying your remarks and disagreeing with them.
Then it must mention both Tacitus and Josephus. And it does.
If you bother to read the quote it starts with the word "If". Irrelevant, since you concluded that I was and that I was therefore wrong.
And let us note that since you jumped into the conversation to defend that very statement along those lines it is hardly unreasonable of me to suggest that you might agree with it. Well, so which is it, Paul? Are you claiming that I claim it, or are you not? You seem to want to have it both ways.
In fact it was ScientificBob who said it. Then why did you claim that I claimed it?
But you can't point to anything beyond your assumption that Tacitus could not have believed it. Where does Tacitus qualify his statement ? Right at the beginning, where he explains the origin of the beliefs of Christians.
So the evidence that it IS referring to fiction must come from outside the text. Now we know that Star Wars is fiction and that the writers of that report knew that. But we don't KNOW that Jesus was fictional, or that Tacitus knew it. Exactly right. So, at best, Tacitus cannot be support for either position, because we cannot know that he intends to use his personal knowledge to substantiate the existence of Jesus, or merely to use his personal knowledge of Christians to explain what they believe and why. So Tacitus cannot be considered an independent verification of the existence of Jesus, or any sort of evidence for it, because we lack evidence that Tacitus actually is providing any independent confirmation of the existence of Jesus.
In other words you ASSUME that Tacitus made no effort to determine the truth. Not at all. I simply refuse to assume, on the basis of no evidence, that he did or even intended to.
This is enough to show the possibility, which is all that I claim. Anything is possible. What is true?
They couldn't JOIN Christianity at all, since it didn't exist as a religion before they started it ! Utter nonsense. It started when they joined it!
And obviously they would know what THEY did ! Why would they? If they thought they were joining a religious movement that existed in Judea, but actually were starting the first Christian church, why would they know that? Again you overpresume the capacity of the lied-to to know that they were lied to. But obviously, by the very definition of a lie if you believe a lie, you don't know it's a lie!
You claim that there ISN'T an equivalent of L. Ron Hubbard for early Christianity. No, I don't claim that. I've never claimed that. I've claimed that someone came up with the Jesus stories, or at least some of them, and then some other people believed those stories to be true and started Christianity. And it's quite obvious from the evidence that's exactly what happened.
Without looking at the examples, you can't tell. It's precisely by looking, and by having been trained in elements of storytelling, that I can tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1717 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And the point is that some things don't look fabricated, that if they were fabricated we'd expect something different. But my point is that they look exactly like what they would look like if they were fabricated. Your point is that they don't look like what they would look like if they were fabricated to serve the agenda of the first Christians. But I don't contend that the Jesus mythology was fabricated by the first Christians. The first Christians were simply the first ones to believe the fabrications - fabrications that may well have included "there are all these other Christians all over the place."
I mean, I think everyone agrees that Plato made stuff up about Socrates to serve his own purposes but that doesn't mean we can't try and pick out what might be historical from what are Plato's inventions. Determining the historical existence of Socrates is a subject for another thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
quote: I think that you will find that historian's disagree. For instance Arrian's work on Alexander is considered a very important source, despite being written centuries after the event.
quote: You can't get down to zero sources just by arguing dependence. And I haven't cited a single source dated to after 130 AD. Quite frankly, you obviously don't know what younger talking about.
quote:Well I wasn't asking for THE reason, just a good reason that they might have had. And you seem to be awfully shy about citing even one. quote: Your are only making your prejudice more obvious. Apparently your commitment to denying a historical Jesus is stronger than any attachment to an accurate and historically honest depiction of history. Dismissing evidence out of hand is NOT "letting the data speak"
quote: I have no idea what you are talking about. I said nothing about Zeus.
quote: So, Troy is a place located by paying attention to the accurate descriptions given in the Illiad, a source far more remote from the actual events and far more mythologized than the Bible. If the Illiad can contain such information, how can you be sure that the Gospels, written mere decades after the event do not contain true information about the historical Jesus ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024