Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gooch's dad · 04-14-2003, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
Extraordinary, from my POV, means something that challenges common sense, perharps violates natural laws.
Rare, does not mean extraordinary - in the context we are discussing in. Do you agree?

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say here---what is rare about a Galilean preacher who had a following of disciples? You seem to be demanding extraordinary evidence for a very ordinary claim--that a man named Jesus existed, and formed the basis for the tales of the gospels. This is the man that Paul was talking about. To read Paul's writings as mythical constructs seems to be special pleading.

I agree with Vinnie for the most part, I think there is sufficient evidence from Paul, the gospels, and the smaller Josephus reference, to conclude that Jesus existed. I understand why many are agnostic on the question, but I think the mythicist position is not particularly well supported. But that's just my opinion.

Vorkosigan · 04-14-2003, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
\

Stretching it all the way to the veil of God. I could have a field day blasting those silly comparisons.

Vinnie

Fine, using Meier, show that Regis Hastur is not a historical figure.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 04-14-2003, 03:40 PM

"the brother of the Lord" in some sense (Gal 1:19), and though some Catholic and mythicists dispute that sense (no, they were cousins; no, he was in a brotherhood; both are possible),

Another possibility: that he saw himself as a spiritual brother like Nxele or Hong Hsiu-chuan.

Vorkosigan

Bobzammel · 04-14-2003, 04:11 PM

Even if he did exist, he was probably not the Messiah. The alleged messianic prophecies either referred to (a) current events (b) were not intended as prophetic (c) Adressed Israel itself, as is most likely the case of the "Suffering Servant".
Another strike against Jesus's claims:The theology of the Old Testament is also out of line with the New. In the Old Testament we have a creator God who gives his people a Law with which to run a society, as well as complex religious rituals. This God is potrayed as bestowing earthly prosperity on his most faithful and supports a society with strong family values and also on occassion champions war(A fact covered up by Bible translaters: "God of Hosts" means "God of Armies"). Then we have Jesus and Paul, who say that life on Earth is to be counted as nothing, that institutions such as the temple and family are to be replaced with spiritual counterparts, there is to be no more law, just a few rules, and so on. Plus Satan, an angel of God in the OT, suddenly becomes a rebellious ruler of the physical dimension and all evil. In other words, in the Old Testament we have a religion from which to run a fairly decent ancient Middle Eastern kingdom. In the New Testament, we have something more akin to a gnostic mystery cult.
Both Jesus and Paul uphold the validity of the Old Testament as divine revelation. However their own points of view totally contradict it's theology.

Peter Kirby · 04-14-2003, 06:18 PM

IronMonkey writes: Extraordinary, from my POV, means something that challenges common sense, perharps violates natural laws.
Rare, does not mean extraordinary - in the context we are discussing in. Do you agree?

I agree that rarity in itself does not make a claim extraordinary: for example, it is rare that I would be wearing specifically a green sweater, blue jeans, and black socks, but there is nothing improbable about it. What challenges common sense would be the claim that I went streaking in the snow, as that would not fit my personality. Are you saying that there is something extraordinary in the idea that there was a Galilean preacher named Joshua executed by Pilate? If not, doesn't the claim require no more than ordinary evidence for its acceptance?

Dionysos was also born of woman. I will not allow you to bring in comparands without indicating your sources. Please name and quote the source you are using, and then explain its relevance.

Paul doesnt mention the name of this woman at all Most women have names.

neither does he place her anywhere on earth. Most human births take place on earth.

Doherty argues that this Pauline phrase was almost entirely governed by Isaiah 7:14. In your opinion, was Isaiah 7:14 a messianic prophecy?

Of course, you have failed to negate the fact that the Pauline epistles refer to Jesus as a man, one born in the ordinary manner. It's not as though a non-human reading of Paul's Jesus is obvious; you have to make several special assumptions for it even to be possible.

The Jews were writing their own "vaunted" history and the figures of Abraham and Moses might or might not have been real. Compare the story of Moses for example whose name was an Egyptian name, meaning "son of," as in Thutmose (son of Thoth) and Ramses (son of Ra). I have read texts that have plausibly demonstrated that most of the early biblical partriarchs correlated with Egyptian Pharaohs/gods - that must have been Alan Alfords When the Gods Came Down. Price said "History does repeat itself, but not nearly as much as myth does" .
I can make a finer point on this later. But let me see your take on it thus far.

Red herring. The relevant point here is that Paul thought of Abraham as a person in the course of human history, and thus thought of Jesus, his descendant, as probably in human history in his mind as well.

kata sarka - in the "sphere of the flesh" says Doherty and C. K. Barrett. I dont think I have to visit that with you - you probably have a better grasp of the argument.

It means, in respect of his physical nature, Jesus was descended from David, according to Paul.

This too - the word "brother" is open to interpretation. James the Just - we have spent too much time on it - Eusebius, origen - incongruence etc etc.

If it's open to interpretation, then you have not shown it to be correct that Paul doesn't know anything about a human Jesus. One thing that Paul may have known is that he had a brother named James.

Its simple - he doesn't place him anywhere on earth. Even Attis was killed hung on a nail, died and resurrected - proof of concept.
Nothing is to compel us that the story of Jesus is any more real than that of Asherah.

Again, what you have to do is cite the sources for your claims and explain the relevance, particularly how you know that these (similar) events were placed in a heavenly sphere.

I see that you made no response to the story that Paul tells about Jesus in 1 Cor 11, particularly how it is clear that Jesus must be supping and speaking with human beings on that night, in the mind of Paul. Doherty doesn't address the force of this point either and instead focuses on the origin of the story, as though that would change its content. In any case, here is what Maurice Goguel says about this passage:

Quote:

In the same Epistle also Paul cites a saying of Jesus to establish the right of those who preach the gospel to be maintained by the churches. "The Lord has commanded," he writes, "that those who preach the gospel shall live by the gospel." Here is certainly an allusion to the words spoken at the sending forth of the disciples on a mission: "If ye are received in a house, eat and drink what is set before you, for the labourer is worthy of his hire" (Luke x. 7; Matt. x. 10). We now reach the last of the citations of the words of Jesus found in Paul's Epistles, and it is almost the most important and the most discussed among them. In the eleventh chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Paul, in combating the defective manner in which the Lord's supper was celebrated at Corinth, recalls what took place on the last evening of Jesus. He writes: "I have received from the Lord . . . and I have in turn given to you." Many critics consider that the words "I have received from the Lord" indicate that there was a vision at he origin of hte tradition concerning the last supper. They mean "I have received" in the sense "I have it directly from the Lord." Other writers adopt a less radical opinion. Loisy and Bousset think that Paul, by a kind of auto-suggestion, reached the point of contemplation in vision the scene that tradition had transmitted to him. Others, like Pfleiderer and Haupt, believe that Paul obtained from a revelation, not the account of the last supper of Jesus, but the knowledge of the sacramental character and significance of the Eucharist.

Nothing int he text of Paul authorizes or justifies such a distinction. Neither can we accept the hypothesis of Lietzmann and Ed. Meyer, who suppose that Paul synthesized in the vision on the Damascus roard all that he knew of Jesus. Besides, the initial vision did not determine Paul's knowledge of Jesus; it caused his faith to be born. All intermediate solutions should be put aside. We are in face of a dilemma: Either the entire tradition about the last supper possessed for Paul a visionary origin, or the formula, "I have received from the Lord," means something other than "I know by means of a vision."

If there had been a vision, it would not diminish in the eyes of the apostle the value of the tradition it related. On the contrary, its authority would be the more increased; it would be surprising that the apostle should not expressly relate a detail of a nature to impress his readers.

Paul draws a very close parallel between the two expressions "I have received" and "I have transmitted" (or "passed on"). They are of the same nature, which would not be the case if on one side it was a case of a supernatural communication received by the apostle, and on the other didactic teaching imparted to the Corinthians. And, above all, nothing authorizes us to understand "I have received from the Lord" in the sense "I have it direct from the Lord." The preposition "apo" which the apostle here uses marks the first origin of the tradition, but without excluding an intermediary. What Paul wishes to say is that in the last analysis tradition goes back to the Lord, who pronounced the words which he relates.

When in the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 1) Paul desires to afifirm that he holds his apostleship direct from Christ and from God without any human intervention, he uses the two prepositions "apo" and "dia," which proves that he perfectly conceives an apostleship coming from God, but not through human intermediaries. The use in our passage of the single preposition "apo" shows that the apostle only means the first origin of the tradition. What he means to say is that the narrative comes from the Lord by the intermediary of men. This detail did not require to be explicitly announced; for the Corinthians it was clear from the very position of the apostle.

The direct study of the text and its comparison with the form of the tradition fixed in the Gospel of Mark confirms this conclusion. Doubtless the Gospel of Mark was only compiled a couple of decades after the Epistle to the Corinthians, but the date of the compilation of a work like a Gospel must not be identified with that of the traditions it contains.

The two texts read as follows: Mark xiv. 22-25: "While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after the blessing, broke it and gave to them, and said: Take it; this is My body. Then He took the cup, and after saying the thanksgiving, gave it to them, and they all drank from it. This is My covenant blood, He said, which is poured out on behalf of many. I tell you that I shall never again drink of the juice of the grape until that day when I shall drink it new in the Kingdom of God."

The first Epistle to the Corninthians, xi. 23-25: "For I myself received from the Lord the account which I have in turn given to you-how the Lord Jesus, on the very night of His betrayal, took some bread, and, after saying the thanksgiving, broke it and said: This is My own body, given on your behalf. Do this in memory of Me. And in the same way with the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant made by My blood. Do this, whenever you drink it, in memory of Me."

In order to keep to the essential points, we shall note the following peculiarities:

1. Paul gives, after the passing round of the cup as well as after the distribution of the bread, an order of repitition. There is none either in Mark or Matthew. Luke (xxii. 19) gives the order only after the distribution of the bread.

2. To the phrase "This is My body," which accompanies the distribution of the bread, Paul adds "given for you," which has no equivalent in Mark or Matthew, but only in Luke.

3. Paul has no equivalent to the words which end the repast in Mark and Matthew--that is to say, no declaration from Jesus that He would drink no more of the juice of the grape before drinking it new in the Kingdom of god. In Luke (xxii. 16) this phrase accompanies the distrubution of the first cup. It must, however, be noted that in a fragment which appears no longer to form a part of the narrative of the last supper, but which is really the commentary on it, Paul says: "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" (1 Cor xi. 26). This is a reminiscence of the eschatological formula which appears to constitute one of the principle elements of the Lord's supper.

All these peculiarities have a common character; they tend to assimilate the two elements constituting the rite to each other and to present them as a special institution by Jesus. They progress, therefore, exactly in the same way as the evolution of the rite. This appears to have had a double character, which at first was the transformation into the carrying out of a command of Jesus of that which at the origin had probably only been an instinctive repitition favoured by the memory preserved of the last evening passed with Him. On the other hand, the evolution had as its result to form out of the distribution of the cu and the bread two parallel and equivalent symbols, while there is every reason to suppose that at the origin these two actions of Jesus had neither the same object nor the same significance. The distribution of the bread symbolized the gift that Jesus made of Himself to His followers and for His followers; the cup illustrated the meeting-place that He gave them in the Kingdom of God. Now the evolution of the texts must have tended continually to conform more closely the narratives to the rite. It is inconceivable, while the believer had the feeling, in celebrating the Eucharist, that he was repeating the actions of Jesus, that additions should have been made to the sotry which would hhave differentiated it from the rite. The text, then, of Paul is subordinate compared with the tradition preserved in Mark. Its origin is not to be sought in a supernatural revelation, but in an historical tradition to which paul is the witness. (Jesus the Nazarene, pp. 104-107)

Of course, even this passage reveals the haphazard manner in which statements about Jesus have been preserved in the letters. If there had not arisen a problem with the eucharist meetings in the Corinthian church, we would not even have received this story about Jesus from Paul.

Are you still defending Louis W. Cable's paragraph that you quoted?

Even if Paul could have had no point to prove, there is no clear reason why he never bothered to mention actual places while referring to Jesus.

And an explanation is needed for this unfathomable silence.
And I dont agree that Paul never needed to prove that Christ existed. I dont have the verses now but I remember Doherty made a fine point of it.

Paul had plenty of points to prove: that Jesus is Lord, that our resurrection lies in the future, that his apostleship was authorized by God, and that the Law was not binding on Gentiles, among other things. That there was a man named Jesus who was crucified does not seem to be one of the things that was disputed; rather, this was taken as a starting point and used by others to show that Jesus is cursed by God.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 04-14-2003, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Fine, using Meier, show that Regis Hastur is not a historical figure.

Vorkosigan

Why?

Vinine

Goliath · 04-14-2003, 06:30 PM

Vinnie,

Quote:

Jesus' historicity is axiomatic

By taking Jesus' existence as an axiom, you have assumed what you are to prove. This is a logical fallacy. Therefore any such argument built upon this "axiom" fails.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Justin70 · 04-14-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy Pallant
Justin,

As a moderator, one of my duties is to provide interesting subjects for discussion. Normally it's something I don't need to do because the inhabitants of this forum keep things going all by themselves. I simply happened upon the exchange between Vinnie and Peter and thought to do as Peter suggested.

Personally, I'm something of a Jesus Myther. I think there may have been a person or persons around whom the legend that is Jesus Christ arose, but I don't think it was the Jesus the Bible describes, nor do I necessarily think that he lived between 4 BCE and 33 CE.

The intent of the OP was to invite Christians to provide the conclusive, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus that Peter originally requested.

My apologies, Jeremy.

Justin70 · 04-14-2003, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say here---what is rare about a Galilean preacher who had a following of disciples? You seem to be demanding extraordinary evidence for a very ordinary claim--that a man named Jesus existed, and formed the basis for the tales of the gospels. This is the man that Paul was talking about. To read Paul's writings as mythical constructs seems to be special pleading.

I agree with Vinnie for the most part, I think there is sufficient evidence from Paul, the gospels, and the smaller Josephus reference, to conclude that Jesus existed. I understand why many are agnostic on the question, but I think the mythicist position is not particularly well supported. But that's just my opinion.

There are very specific things that, according to the Gospels, Jesus did. To be simply a preacher with disciples is somewhat ordinary I agree. However, put that in context of what miracles he supposedly performed and the things that happened. THEN we get into where there was an extraordinary man. A VERY extraordinary man.

As for the Josephus passage. 2 problems.

1. Context - The passage was placed totally in the middle of something that it has no connection with? If my english teacher were to read this she'd red mark it all up asking "Where does this fit? Where did this come from?"

2. Jewish Accuracy - Would a Jew have written from the standpoint that he believed that Jesus was the Messiah? This point has been banged to death which leads up to the apologists 'cleaning up' of the text so that it agrees with what an Orthodox Jew would have said during the time.

My argument is why not take it out all together? I remember reading (and maybe somebody can back this up?) that some of the earliest translations of Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews didn't even have this entry about Jesus in them?

Justin70 · 04-14-2003, 09:24 PM

Look people, here's the deal.

Just sit down with your favorite translation of the New Testament someday and do something I did a lot time ago. I did it with the bible, a piece of paper and a pen/pencil.

READ the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Write down notes of everything he did. Historical facts. Details. Just write it down and compare. Even pull out Paul's writings and do the same thing. Just write what Jesus historically did. Information.

After you're done, compare all the accounts. The classical view is that these books were written by seperate people who actually WITNESSED Jesus whether it be first hand or 2nd hand or whatever. Compare. Can all these historical facts be presented in a courtroom to PROVE Jesus, a historical man, ever exsisted and also performed all of these events?

I'm absolutely and totally convinced that they cannot. The contradictions are vast and cannot work in a literal/historical context. You don't need to INTERPRET anything. Just read the stories. =)

Since the gospels cannot agree on details and events without contradicting one another you have to look OUTSIDE of the NT for proof. Even if the NT *did* work it would be a very good idea to look for non-christian and even christian writers around the time to VERIFY the stories. This has been done to death. We have a list of names of historians/writers around the era (Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tactus, etc) that SEEM to be talking of, perhaps, the same person but I'm convinced that they fall one by one.

The reason I suggested that people look into this stuff for themselves is because either I or anyone here is going to convince anyone that Jesus was a Myth or a historical figure. It requires an open mind and a willingness to ask yourself some HARD questions and to be intellectually honest with ones self.

I hold the belief that Jesus was 100% myth. Why? Because the gospels don't tell a historical story that doesn't contradict itself. Outside sources, for the most part (at the very least), fail to backup a historical Jesus.

And the most important: Doesn't it seem just a LITTLE odd that there have been dozens of 'fallen son of god' stories that have been told over the ages that have VASTLY SIMILIAR coorelations to someone that supposedly was historical? Why don't we argue that Dionysus was historical? Mithra? Because it's OBVIOUS that it's not. =)

Oh, and just a footnote, I don't discount ANYONE's theory or idea based on the fact that someone say it's 'old' or has been 'disproven YEARS ago' - I wanna know WHY.

Show me ONE solid non-biblical writer within 100 years of Jesus's supposed death that can be quoted as a CREDIBLE witness (or even 2nd hand witness) to the life of Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-14-2003, 03:40 PM	#33
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	"the brother of the Lord" in some sense (Gal 1:19), and though some Catholic and mythicists dispute that sense (no, they were cousins; no, he was in a brotherhood; both are possible), Another possibility: that he saw himself as a spiritual brother like Nxele or Hong Hsiu-chuan. Vorkosigan

04-14-2003, 04:11 PM	#34
Bobzammel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 276	Even if he did exist, he was probably not the Messiah. The alleged messianic prophecies either referred to (a) current events (b) were not intended as prophetic (c) Adressed Israel itself, as is most likely the case of the "Suffering Servant". Another strike against Jesus's claims:The theology of the Old Testament is also out of line with the New. In the Old Testament we have a creator God who gives his people a Law with which to run a society, as well as complex religious rituals. This God is potrayed as bestowing earthly prosperity on his most faithful and supports a society with strong family values and also on occassion champions war(A fact covered up by Bible translaters: "God of Hosts" means "God of Armies"). Then we have Jesus and Paul, who say that life on Earth is to be counted as nothing, that institutions such as the temple and family are to be replaced with spiritual counterparts, there is to be no more law, just a few rules, and so on. Plus Satan, an angel of God in the OT, suddenly becomes a rebellious ruler of the physical dimension and all evil. In other words, in the Old Testament we have a religion from which to run a fairly decent ancient Middle Eastern kingdom. In the New Testament, we have something more akin to a gnostic mystery cult. Both Jesus and Paul uphold the validity of the Old Testament as divine revelation. However their own points of view totally contradict it's theology.

04-14-2003, 09:24 PM	#40
Justin70 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Vancouver, WA Posts: 314	Look people, here's the deal. Just sit down with your favorite translation of the New Testament someday and do something I did a lot time ago. I did it with the bible, a piece of paper and a pen/pencil. READ the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Write down notes of everything he did. Historical facts. Details. Just write it down and compare. Even pull out Paul's writings and do the same thing. Just write what Jesus historically did. Information. After you're done, compare all the accounts. The classical view is that these books were written by seperate people who actually WITNESSED Jesus whether it be first hand or 2nd hand or whatever. Compare. Can all these historical facts be presented in a courtroom to PROVE Jesus, a historical man, ever exsisted and also performed all of these events? I'm absolutely and totally convinced that they cannot. The contradictions are vast and cannot work in a literal/historical context. You don't need to INTERPRET anything. Just read the stories. =) Since the gospels cannot agree on details and events without contradicting one another you have to look OUTSIDE of the NT for proof. Even if the NT did work it would be a very good idea to look for non-christian and even christian writers around the time to VERIFY the stories. This has been done to death. We have a list of names of historians/writers around the era (Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Tactus, etc) that SEEM to be talking of, perhaps, the same person but I'm convinced that they fall one by one. The reason I suggested that people look into this stuff for themselves is because either I or anyone here is going to convince anyone that Jesus was a Myth or a historical figure. It requires an open mind and a willingness to ask yourself some HARD questions and to be intellectually honest with ones self. I hold the belief that Jesus was 100% myth. Why? Because the gospels don't tell a historical story that doesn't contradict itself. Outside sources, for the most part (at the very least), fail to backup a historical Jesus. And the most important: Doesn't it seem just a LITTLE odd that there have been dozens of 'fallen son of god' stories that have been told over the ages that have VASTLY SIMILIAR coorelations to someone that supposedly was historical? Why don't we argue that Dionysus was historical? Mithra? Because it's OBVIOUS that it's not. =) Oh, and just a footnote, I don't discount ANYONE's theory or idea based on the fact that someone say it's 'old' or has been 'disproven YEARS ago' - I wanna know WHY. Show me ONE solid non-biblical writer within 100 years of Jesus's supposed death that can be quoted as a CREDIBLE witness (or even 2nd hand witness) to the life of Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.