Freethought & Rationalism Archive

eheffa · 04-02-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paarsurrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

2) There is a historical root to Jesus, but it's nothing like we imagine (a vague hand wavy unknown historical root)

Hi

On another Catholic website; I said that there is no secular historical evidence that Jesus existed. We Muslims only believe that it is written in Quran.

The Catholics could not bring a secular turstworthy evidence.

Thanks

If the Quran is inerrant and thus a reliable historical source then I suppose that would be all the evidence a Muslim would need to believe in the Historical Jesus. Since Mohammed left a pretty big trail of bloody conflicts and controversy in his time, we do have some corroborative third party evidence that he was at least a real flesh and blood person of history. His writings 600 years after the time of the Jesus would not exactly answer the skeptics' request for third party evidence of the existence of the historical Jesus but this should be enough for the faithful Muslim don't you think?

We should perhaps leave the question of the Quran's reliability for another discussion but it doesn't exactly constitute secular evidence for the HJ.

-evan

spamandham · 04-02-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...at any rate. If we start with the realization (not assumption) that the Gospels are completely untrustworthy, as they obviously are, then we really can't trust them in regard to expectations of Jesus either. They become mostly (entirely?) irrelevant in regards to any HJ argument in that regard, since they are equally compatible with any other theory du jour.

So, in effect, the HJ argument is baseless or significantly extremely weak. The internal primary source for Jesus is untrustworthy and there is no external non-apologetic information about him.

I agree.

spamandham · 04-02-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paarsurrey

On another Catholic website; I said that there is no secular historical evidence that Jesus existed. We Muslims only believe that it is written in Quran.

The Qur'an was written ~600 years after the purported events. It brings nothing to the table in regards to evidence.

Sheshbazzar · 04-02-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Interesting long discussion giving perspectives from both students and teachers on the subject of "Christian Faculty" and the restrictions that are commonly placed upon freedom of conscience by "Christian" Universities.
here

So .. you went out to find "evidence" for your global and apodictic claim after you were challenged on its validity, meaning you had none of this in hand, or were aware of it, before you made your claim?

Jeffrey

I was made painfully aware of the practice when a well liked and respected Christian teacher in my area was forced to tender his resignation simply because he had interviewed a few prominent religious scholars on a TV documentary, and their opinions on the accuracy of The NT narratives had conflicted with his institutions position and "Mission Statement".
Of note is that these experts opinions were not even subscribed to by that Christian interviewer.
The thought of the governing board seeming to be, that his taking part in the presenting of professional historians opinions in public, had "tainted" him, and thus made him unfit to continue as a teacher on their Faculty.

So, having been aware of this local incident, and of various others of the same sort, I posted my statement, already knowledgeable of it being a rather widespread and publicly known "policy" of many Christian Collges, Universities, and Schools to require their Faculty members to sign a "Statement of Faith" or some similar document as a prerequisite to obtaining, or sometimes, retaining a teaching position within their institution.
True, I did not have any material collated with an express purpose of defending the statement, trusting that it would stand up to scrutiny by anyone with a reason to investigate.
You challenged the validity of the statement, so I posted one single link.
Anyone seriously investigating this matter, will soon be aware that thousands of pieces of evidence can be supplied to back up my statement.

One cannot help but wonder though, how those Christians that get involved in discussions on these IIDB Forums, would feel and react if their employers, finding out about their participation here, considered them to be "tainted" by that contact, and summarily fired them, or forced them to submit their resignations, simply because they had committed the religiously grievous error of discussing religion with the "wrong" people?

J-D · 04-07-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Why do you consider John the Baptist likely to be a figure of history?

Firstly, John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus, and secondly, John the Baptist's existence is not challenged, quite unlike Jesus, as is evident in Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" the Jew.

The second point strikes me as worthless. It hasn't been challenged? So challenge it! Then it has been.

As for the first point, I presume you consider references to Jesus in Josephus as being entirely fraudulent. Why don't you consider references to John the Baptist to be equally fraudulent?

J-D · 04-07-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

A lot depends on what one considers as being "historical". In the case of "Jesus" there seems to be very little that can be confirmed as being of real "history" outside of the incorporation of a few real cities, political leaders and religious parties into a highly improbable narrative story.
In many ways the NT reminds me of the Rambo series of movies, with its larger than life super-hero that is able to accomplish incredible feats.
Rambo films incorporate a lot of real place names, political intrigues, and violent action, with a undercurrent of pathos, and cynicism against the status-quo of the System, over which our intrepid hero always ethically triumphs.
Lets see, Rambo starts out as an American soldier, and returned Viet-Nam veteran, whose troubles begin while hitch-hiking and encountering an authoritarian and dishonest small town sheriff.
So should we then conclude, that because Rambo was an American, and there really is an America, and he was a Viet-Nam veteran, and there really was a Viet-Nam war, and there really were veterans, and because there is evidence that some small-town sheriffs were dishonest, and mistreated returning veterans;
That therefor we ought to be reasonably open to the possibility that a real "historical" Rambo lies somewhere at the core of the story, upon whose original words and actions the whole series of Rambo action/adventure films was developed and expanded?

In my view this is what postulating a "historical" Jesus amounts to.

Yes, there really was a Roman occupied Judea, and a real Jerusalem fraught with political and religious conflicts and corruption, and there were apocalyptic preachers wandering around the country crying;
Woe! Woe! Woe! The End is Coming! The End is Coming! Repent! Repent! Repent!
But none of these were any more the "Jesus" of the Bible, than any old "Joe Veteran" from Podunk is the real Rambo.

I think this is a very good example of how verisimilitude or real "historical" setting does not automatically translate an historical sounding narrative into reliable history.

One would expect that the real historical Jesus as described in the Canonical Gospels would have generated a lot of notice & controversy to prompt someone to write about him - even if to deplore his god-like claims as groundless. But instead of the expected maelstorm of controversy, provoked by the Gospel Jesus we find.....nothing!

If there were a real historical Jesus exactly as described in the Canonical Gospels, he would have generated a lot of notice and controversy. So I agree that we can rule out that possibility.

But if there were a real historical Jesus who was not exactly as described in the Canonical Gospels, he wouldn't necessarily have generated a lot of notice and controversy. So it's not equally clear to me that we can rule out that possibility.

J-D · 04-07-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

I guess that it would rarely even occur to people who have no religious background at all to start studying NT studies.

I suppose that makes sense.

But are there no scholars outside the field of New Testament studies who are interested in the early history of the Christian Church, or in the history of first-century Palestine? Just asking.

No answers?

Solitary Man · 04-07-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I suppose that makes sense.

But are there no scholars outside the field of New Testament studies who are interested in the early history of the Christian Church, or in the history of first-century Palestine? Just asking.

No answers?

Actually, they are numerous. There are many scholars outside New Testament studies who have commented at length about the situation. Just one such scholar is Robert Grant. I know many people personally who started with Classics and got interested in early Christianity, I myself being one.

aa5874 · 04-07-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If there were a real historical Jesus exactly as described in the Canonical Gospels, he would have generated a lot of notice and controversy. So I agree that we can rule out that possibility.

But if there were a real historical Jesus who was not exactly as described in the Canonical Gospels, he wouldn't necessarily have generated a lot of notice and controversy. So it's not equally clear to me that we can rule out that possibility.

I don't think that Jesus of the NT has to be exactly as described to have generated a lot of notice and controversy. John the Baptist, Jesus the son of Ananus, the false prophet from Egypt and Jesus the son of Damneus were mentioned by Josephus, yet he did not make any claims about them that were exactly like Jesus of the NT.

It is a given that it is possible that Jesus did or did not exist, all we have is the evidence or information about him, and it is more likely that he did not exist based on the evidence and less likely that he did.

It is possible that a person charged with a crime is either guilty or innocent, only the evidence presented can support a verdict at that time. And the verdict is deemed to be correct until further new evidence surfaces, but it is always possible that the verdict is wrong.
But possibilty cannot overturn a verdict, only evidence or relevant information.

The evidence for the existence of Jesus is exteremely weak, the evidence for non-existence is strong. It is reasonable to consider Jesus to have never existed. Only evidence or relevant information can overturn my consideration, since it always possible that Jesus did or did not exist.

J-D · 04-07-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I note that you haven't answered either of the questions I asked. Maybe, because I offered my own answers to them, it was not clear that I intended them as genuine questions and not as purely rhetorical ones.

Do you think that the hypothesis I described (and which some people actually do hold) cannot possibly be true?

Do you think it is unreasonable to describe people who adhere to that hypothesis as believing in a historical Jesus?

Yes the manner in which you presented your questions,

Quote:

Speculation: about the fourth decade of the first century, a man called Jesus preached a messianic message of some variety to the Jews of Palestine. Some accepted him as their leader. They continued to acknowledge his leadership and preach his message after his execution, and gathered more followers. From this group progressively evolved (with doctrinal differences developing over time) the various groups subsequently identified as Christian.

I'm not concerned to argue the truth of this speculation now. But some people do argue for such a position. Is there anything impossible about it? Not that I can see. Is it unreasonable to describe their position as including a 'historical Jesus'? I don't think so--even though it's not the Jesus of the Gospels.

providing your own answers in advance is the usual device framing a rhetorical question on which one has already reached a conclusion, and for which no answer to the precise question(s) is desired, or is to be expected. And usually any responses to such rhetorical questions are in the form of counter-arguments and refutations .
As I do not hold that "there is anything impossible about it" there was nothing for me to reply, nor any need to attempt any counter-argument or refutation, thus no reply to that particular question.
The second question, as to "Is it unreasonable to describe their position as including a 'historical Jesus'?" was addressed by my comparisons of the similarity in the employment of "historical" and political settings and situations in the Rambo stories.
My conclusion being that The Gospel stories have nothing more to offer as evidence of any actual "historical core Jesus" , than does the known to be fictional Rambo account offer evidence that a "historical core Rambo" actually existed and was the "historical" Rambo which the writer latter embellished.

So in my view not impossible. Unreasonable?perhaps not, but only the producing of at least some minimal evidence of their characters actual physical existence, and physical evidence that unmistakeably indicates that said hero ever physically interacted with his contemporary world could at all establish the reasonableness of the position.
That is, if he was famous, and had thousands of devoted followers, or even a few hundred at the time, some contemporary evidence would be required to establish whether it is sensible to abandon reason, to accept that holding otherwise is the "unreasonable" position.
If 95% of the stories contained within The NT are fictional, then of what real value in (that unidentifiable) remaining 5%, that a person ought to surrender reason and logic and live their remaining days in subjection to the now lying, and/or "deceived and deceiving" religious leaders of the present Christian churches?

You seem to be confusing two separate issues. If a time traveller provided us with conclusive evidence: that about the fourth decade of the first century, a man called Jesus preached a messianic message of some variety to the Jews of Palestine; that some accepted him as their leader; that they continued to acknowledge his leadership and preach his message after his execution, and gathered more followers; and that from this group progressively evolved (with doctrinal differences developing over time) the various groups subsequently identified as Christian; then that would be no reason for anybody to become a Christian, but it would be proof that there was a historical Jesus. (Hypothetical) proof that there was a historical Jesus does not equate to a justification for Christian belief.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.