Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The question is WHEN did it begin - in which century: -1, 1, 2, 3 or early 4th. We know it exploded at Nicaea and was fully legalised AD 381 CE for example, therefore the indisputable answer has to be either -1, 1, 2, 3 or early 4th....

What!!!! Why do you accept the words of Eusebius about Nicaea??? It may be that there were FAR less Christians AFTER Constantine than before. Perhaps even up to this very day.

Examine the words of the Emperor Julian.

"Against the Gallileans"

Quote:

.....you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics, because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves....

How many were SLAUGHTERED???

The sources which claimed Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome tell us that there was a Council in Nicaea and that Eusebius was there!!!!

The "Donation to Constantine" is NOT a forgery if "Church History" is historically accurate.

Now, one cannot search for an unknown body with no established features or marks.

It is UNHEARD of where people looking for something which is presumably lost have decided what is missing by a poll.

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not trying to extract anything from the Gospels, I'm trying to find out whether the mythicist position requires any possible "Historical Jesus" to be defined only as magic Jesus or else he's not Jesus.

Some of these answers sound, frankly, evasive and obfuscatory. If you'rte going to deny that a historical Jesus existed, then at least clarify what you're saying never existed.

In the field of history it is not an absolute fact Jesus existed, it is technically just a hypothesis that many people believe to be true. I think you need to understand this clearly.

Based on the assessment of all the evidence available to them within their own conceptual framework, the historicists take this hypothesis as true and then construct their theories about the HJ.

Antithetically, based on the assessment of all the (same) evidence available to them within their own conceptual framework, the mythicists do not talke this hypothesis as true. Instead they use the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist as their hypothetical starting place.

One does NOT need to claim or make any hypothesis that Jesus did exist or did NOT exist Before examining the evidence.

One must FIRST examine the evidence available and then make or develop a theory or an hypothesis.

It most remarkable that some do NOT understand the difference between Speculation and Hypothesis.

It is virtually impossible or horribly absurd to develop an hypothesis on the existence or non-existence of Jesus from the contents of a BLANK sheet of paper.

The quest for an historical Jesus is most illogical.

The character Jesus is found in the NT and is described in great detail yet HJers have REJECTED those sources and are now POLLING their imagination 250 years AFTER the Quest began.

We all know the result---Each of them will find the Jesus they had Imagined.

Jesus is MYTH and its description is NOT my imagination.

Mark

Quote:

....about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them. 49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit...

JonA · 03-29-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

If that "historical person" was anything other than a Jesus in keeping with the gospel narrative, then "historical Jesus" is a meaningless term for him, for the same reason we don't have an "historical Alice."

Obviously false, since the historical Santa Claus didn't live at the north pole, didn't ride a sleigh carried by flying reindeer, and had operations limited to much less than the entire world.

If I suggested that you could, through historical critical method, extract an "historical Santa Claus" from the Coca Cola ads featuring a fat red guy you would rightly tell me I was being absurd.

And if historians looking to reconstruct an historical Jesus were restricting their search to a thirty second blurb about crucifixion that used Jesus as its spokesperson, your analogy might be applicable.

Too bad that's not how it works... too bad for your analogy that is.

Quote:

It is based on the idea that you can, through careful exegesis, turn secondary sources into primary sources. You can't.

Exegesis? LOL.

Just what on earth are you talking about?

Jon

J-D · 03-29-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The character Jesus is found in the NT

No, that's wrong. A character Jesus is found in the New Testament; not the character Jesus. Or, possibly, more than one character called Jesus can be found in the New Testament; but in any case, other characters called Jesus can still be found in other books. There are several characters called Jesus in This Perfect Day, by Ira Levin, just for example.

aa5874 · 03-30-2012, 12:02 AM

It is wholly absurd to use a poll to establish the historicity of an UNKNOWN character.

In the NT we have characters called Pilate the Governor , Caiaphas the High Priest , the angel Gabriel and Satan the Devil.

In order to LOOK for Pilate, Caiaphas, Gabriel, Jesus and the Devil I will simply look for credible sources that mentioned those characters.

I cannot corroborate Gabriel, the Devil and Jesus in credible sources.

Gabriel, the Devil and Jesus are Myths.

Doug Shaver · 03-30-2012, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Diogenes has a poll, designed to reveal which criteria one should select, in order to "qualify" someone "as a historical Jesus".

I read the question, and I read his followup posts. I know what he meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

you have identified a couple of Diogenes' parameters as meaningful evidence of the historicity of Jesus of Capernaum.

No, I have not.

Doug Shaver · 03-30-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm trying to find out whether the mythicist position requires any possible "Historical Jesus" to be defined only as magic Jesus or else he's not Jesus.

No, it does not. Any mythicist who has such a requirement is trying to win the argument using proof by definition.

tanya · 03-30-2012, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Check off everything you would need to see to say a guy was a "Historical Jesus."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver post 13

I went with the crucifixion, some disciples, and the disciples thinking he was alive again after the crucifixion. That's not exactly my own definition, but it's close enough for the purpose of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya post 16

What would you need to see, Doug, to say that Hercules was historical, not mythical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver post 74

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That would depend entirely on what the defenders of his historicity were saying about him. Show me one of those defenders, and then I will tell you about the man whom I would consider the historical Hercules if his existence were proven. (emphasis by tanya)

"proven" ?

really, Doug?

Does that mean, since you have selected crucifixion and existence of disciples, that you believe that the existence of Jesus of Capernaum has been "proven"?

No, it does not mean anything like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

On what basis, may I inquire, do your regard the existence of Jesus of Capernaum as PROVEN?

I don't. I have said how I define "historical Jesus." I believe the evidence is against his actual existence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Now, Doug, whatever else you are doing, please google Hercules, and tell me if the SEVERAL enormous stone temples dedicated to him, do not serve as ample evidence of his historical existence?

Sure, just as soon as you explain how my doing so would have any relevance to the present discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya post 76

Diogenes has a poll, designed to reveal which criteria one should select, in order to "qualify" someone "as a historical Jesus".

Several members of the forum have endeavored to explain why such a poll is futile, yet, you have identified a couple of Diogenes' parameters as meaningful evidence of the historicity of Jesus of Capernaum.

So, I repeat, do you find the existence of enormous stone temples, meaningful evidence of the historicity of Hercules?

If you do not regard those temples, Doug, as meaningful evidence of the historicity of Hercules, then, if you were to excavate a temple, somewhere, say, 2nd century, like those of Hercules, impressive, reflecting a significant investment of both time and wealth, but, dedicated, not to Hercules, but rather, to Jesus of Capernaum, would you then decline to identify those temples as evidence of Jesus' historicity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver post 116

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

you have identified a couple of Diogenes' parameters as meaningful evidence of the historicity of Jesus of Capernaum.

No, I have not.

this is not a private conversation, ...

J-D · 03-30-2012, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is wholly absurd to use a poll to establish the historicity of an UNKNOWN character.

In the NT we have characters called Pilate the Governor , Caiaphas the High Priest , the angel Gabriel and Satan the Devil.

In order to LOOK for Pilate, Caiaphas, Gabriel, Jesus and the Devil I will simply look for credible sources that mentioned those characters.

I cannot corroborate Gabriel, the Devil and Jesus in credible sources.

Gabriel, the Devil and Jesus are Myths.

Jesus is not a myth. Jesus is the name of a nineteenth-century President of Costa Rica. Gabriel is not a myth either. Gabriel is the name of the chair of the German SPD. There are many sources which mention characters called Jesus and/or characters called Gabriel.

jdl · 03-30-2012, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Exegesis? LOL.

Just what on earth are you talking about?

The term is quite common in this field.

View Poll Results: Check off everything you would need to see to say a guy was a "Historical Jesus."
God	1	2.63%
Resurrection	3	7.89%
Healed miraculously and drove out real demons	3	7.89%
Was a conventional (non-supernatural) faith healer and exorcist, but did not do miracles	13	34.21%
Performed nature miracles such as walking on water	3	7.89%
Was born of a virgin	2	5.26%
Said all or most of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	4	10.53%
Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	21	55.26%
Believed himself to be God	2	5.26%
Believed himself to be the Messiah	5	13.16%
Was believed by his followers to be God	1	2.63%
Was believed by his followers to be the Messiah	16	42.11%
Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple	9	23.68%
Was crucified	27	71.05%
Was from Nazareth	8	21.05%
Was from Galilee	12	31.58%
Had 12 disciples	3	7.89%
Had some disciples, not necessarily 12	25	65.79%
Raised the dead	2	5.26%
Was believed by his disciples to still be alive somehow after the crucifixion.	17	44.74%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

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

03-30-2012, 12:02 AM	#115
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	It is wholly absurd to use a poll to establish the historicity of an UNKNOWN character. In the NT we have characters called Pilate the Governor , Caiaphas the High Priest , the angel Gabriel and Satan the Devil. In order to LOOK for Pilate, Caiaphas, Gabriel, Jesus and the Devil I will simply look for credible sources that mentioned those characters. I cannot corroborate Gabriel, the Devil and Jesus in credible sources. Gabriel, the Devil and Jesus are Myths.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.