FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-16-2006, 06:24 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default They have no idea , have they?

http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006...storicity.html

This points us to articles on the historicity of Jesus, such as, http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006...-evidence.html , which claims 'Mara bar Sarapion (ca. 73 C.E.)'

Or http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006...ee-better.html which says 'The earliest Christian writings all assume Jesus' historicity.'

So there is little point expecting to learn anything from such 'scholars'.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 06:38 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006...storicity.html

This points us to articles on the historicity of Jesus, such as, http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006...-evidence.html , which claims 'Mara bar Sarapion (ca. 73 C.E.)'
If you're going to cite the article, cite relevant context and qualifiers. Not doing so is quite disingenuous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Pahl
However, it seems to me that, while this has some merit as "supporting evidence," it is not particularly strong in itself. After all, each of these sources, written decades after Jesus' purported life and death, could simply be relying on the "word on the street" which assumed Jesus' historicity or on a sympathetic witness who asserted Jesus' historicity, either of which could be contrary to fact. At most, these witnesses testify to the widespread assumption of Jesus' historicity by their own day.
Regards,
Rick Sumner
Rick Sumner is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 07:46 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006...storicity.html

This points us to articles on the historicity of Jesus, such as, http://michaelpahl.blogspot.com/2006...-evidence.html , which claims 'Mara bar Sarapion (ca. 73 C.E.)'
If you're going to cite the article, cite relevant context and qualifiers. Not doing so is quite disingenuous.
Regards,
Rick Sumner
...right, and besides, on a point of logic, believing that there was a historical Jesus, does not entail a belief that most of gospel "events" are a historical account of him. There are many here (myself included), who do not profess to be Christian, and who simply hold that on the whole, the earthly existence of a minor Jewish prophetic figure at the break of the ages, is a way better explanation of the origin of Christianity than half-baked theories that inter alia have no way of accounting for a sect of Judaic puritans in worship of an alien pagan god.

So Steven, if James the Just and his "saints" in Jerusalem evidently did not
worship platonic abstracts and pagan idols come to life as MJ, what "Jesus" did they revere ? Pray, tell !

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 10:34 AM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
...right, and besides, on a point of logic, believing that there was a historical Jesus, does not entail a belief that most of gospel "events" are a historical account of him. There are many here (myself included), who do not profess to be Christian, and who simply hold that on the whole, the earthly existence of a minor Jewish prophetic figure at the break of the ages, is a way better explanation of the origin of Christianity than half-baked theories that inter alia have no way of accounting for a sect of Judaic puritans in worship of an alien pagan god.
All explanations of the historicity or myth of Jesus are half-baked theories. There is no document to show that your explanation is not half-baked.

I am of the opinion that Jesus is fictitious or mythical because all the information that I have seen, appears to be half-baked. I will change my opinion only when I receive well-baked theories based on well-baked evidence.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 12:02 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner
If you're going to cite the article, cite relevant context and qualifiers. Not doing so is quite disingenuous.
It is sufficient context to mention that the guy thinks Mara ben Saparion is any evidence at all for a historical Jesus. What more does anybody need to hear?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 12:45 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tallmadge, Ohio
Posts: 808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr
It is sufficient context to mention that the guy thinks Mara ben Saparion is any evidence at all for a historical Jesus. What more does anybody need to hear?
Plenty. You seem to have ignored what he writes before citing the various non-Christian witnesses:

Quote:
in most apologetic approaches, the "star witness" for the defence of a belief in Jesus' historicity tends to be the early non-Christian testimonies to Jesus or early Christianity. Here are some of the key texts in English translation along with brief comments:
It is pretty clear that what he is doing is describing the non-Christian testimonies cited by apologists and assessing their worth. There is a vast difference between citing Mara bar Sarapion as strong evidence, and citing it so as to point out the pros and cons of its evidentiary value.

I agree with Sumner here. You are being disingenuous.
jjramsey is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 12:58 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjramsey


It is pretty clear that what he is doing is describing the non-Christian testimonies cited by apologists and assessing their worth. There is a vast difference between citing Mara bar Sarapion as strong evidence, and citing it so as to point out the pros and cons of its evidentiary value.
I shall quote what Pahl said about Mara 'This reference is in a letter by a Syrian Stoic, and the standard explanation is that the "wise king" is Jesus and that the phrase "their kingdom was taken away" refers to the Jewish revolt put down by the early 70s C.E.'

Of course, you will simply quote in return Pahl discussing the pros and cons of these standard explanations.


After all, you have just said Pahl did that, so it will be the simplest task in the world for you to cut and paste where Pahl discusses whether 'the wise king' really was Jesus, or whether the Jews really did have a kingdom before 70 AD.

Unless you are wanting people to believe that Pahl discusses something that he doesn't actually discuss at all.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 12:59 PM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Quote:
half-baked theories that inter alia have no way of accounting for a sect of Judaic puritans in worship of an alien pagan god.
First, pagan was a term of insult invented by xians!

And Judaic puritans had a history of worshipping God and an angelology. It is not a stretch for them to invent another angel this time a son of god - also not original.

If we accept a historic figure you propose, so what? What did he say or do that made any difference, that believing in a messiah would not?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 01:07 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Here is what Pahl says abut Paul's letters :-

' Nevertheless, he believed Jesus to have been a historical figure, and Jesus' historical existence had at least some measure of historical-theological significance for Paul: at the very least in seeing Jesus as a Jew under Torah, indeed the Jewish Messiah born of the lineage of David, who died through crucifixion and was subsequently resurrected (Rom 1:3; 1 Cor 11:23-25; 15:1-8; Gal 4:4).* Paul clearly believed more than this about Jesus, but none of this additional belief negates this assumed belief in Jesus' existence as a historical person.**'

Rather disingenous , don't yout think, to mislead readers into thinking that Paul ever refers to *Jesus of Nazareth* as an historical person, rather than some unknown Jesus living at some unknown time, who had emptied himself of divinity, lived an ordinary life, yet proved to be God by appearing to people in visions and dreams, in a state that was taken to be a resurrection.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 01:10 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

And Pahl repeats the bizarre claim that Jesus was meant to be an obscure person.

' In this scenario one would not expect contemporary records, official or otherwise, to have survived for such a marginal Jew in the backwoods of the early Roman Empire.'

I thought the Jesus of the Gospels was known far and wide even before he was born, and he had to be put to death to stop the Romans invading the country.

So the Jesus of the Gospels is not an historical figure.
Steven Carr is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.