Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 12-17-2003, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Different media. Epistles and sayings docs should not be expected, let alone required to have these details.

Vinnie

I disagree on epistles. This is just an assertion. Were I to write a letter to those familiar with Jesus, I would be putting in statements of common ground - "remember when Jesus kicked ass in the temple, or remember how he was born from the stem of Jesse"...

And maybe they are sayings gospels precisely because there is nothing more known.

This is cumulative towards the "composite" approach so in vogue among serious internet lurkers these days.

GakuseiDon · 12-17-2003, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
This is cumulative towards the "composite" approach so in vogue among serious internet lurkers these days.

What is the composite approach? I don't think I've heard the term before.

Vinnie · 12-17-2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
I disagree on epistles. This is just an assertion. Were I to write a letter to those familiar with Jesus, I would be putting in statements of common ground - "remember when Jesus kicked ass in the temple, or remember how he was born from the stem of Jesse"...

And maybe they are sayings gospels precisely because there is nothing more known.

This is cumulative towards the "composite" approach so in vogue among serious internet lurkers these days.

You ought to goe tell that to Richard Carrier!

Quote:

"[Doherty] argues that "if none of the sayings and deeds of Jesus found in the Gospels are attributed to him in the epistles," etc., then "the Gospels cannot be accepted as providing any historical data..." (p. 26). This is far overstating the case. It is true this somewhat lightens the weight the Gospels carry as evidence, but it hardly destroys it. After all, if none of the sayings and deeds of Plato as recorded in Diogenes Laertius were exactly reflected in Plato's letters it certainly would not follow that Diogenes is to be thrown out. To the contrary, these are such different media we cannot expect overlap, though we are delighted to find it. Different interests, different styles, and different sources dictate the content of both. This does not mean Doherty's point is wrong. The problem he raises does add to his aggregate case. But it does not result in such a slam-dunk conclusion as he portrays here.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uspuzzle.shtml

Strangely, since Paul shows knowledge of a few Gospel details about an historical Jesus I take it the HJ case is a slam, dunk!

Vinnie

rlogan · 12-18-2003, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
You ought to goe tell that to Richard Carrier!

Strangely, since Paul shows knowledge of a few Gospel details about an historical Jesus I take it the HJ case is a slam, dunk!

Vinnie

Vinnie - Remember that I am of the vastly superior "composite school" as opposed to the thoroughly discredited "HJ/JM" extremist religions.

I am not going to claim to be an expert on this except to say there is general agreement on the epistles not providing much of anything concrete on the HJ. "A few" details. And those arguably follow the "Christ" vision as opposed to necessarily a specific "HJ" vision. He died. Wow. How unique. Even to say he was crucified is not saying much unique. Marketing OT prophesy lines is also unimpressive.

There weren't "rules of conduct" he was following for "venues" of literature. I am suggesting that my proposition is just as valid as the excuse made for there being no real meat there.

You know, I was just reading in Josephus' Biography on the Jesus, Son of Sapphias - "leader of seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" Now this guy had some gonads, and slew all the Greeks in Tiberias. Josephus captured him, but let him go under the condition that he be good. He crops up several other times inciting things and eventually he is "punished" but its not clear to me how. Another Jesus is a leader of 600 armed men in Ch 40.

Anyway, what we got here is "Joe Christ". There's all kinds of "Joe's" (many aren't even named Joe) that can serve as a model. Forgive me for being so banal, but there's enpough "Joe's" out there to invoke that name whether you are referring to anyone specifically or not.

Llyricist · 12-18-2003, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
You know, I was just reading in Josephus' Biography on the Jesus, Son of Sapphias - "leader of seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" Now this guy had some gonads, and slew all the Greeks in Tiberias. Josephus captured him, but let him go under the condition that he be good. He crops up several other times inciting things and eventually he is "punished" but its not clear to me how. Another Jesus is a leader of 600 armed men in Ch 40.

Any chance either of these guys was connected to the movement started by Judas the Galilean?

Amaleq13 · 12-18-2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Many consider the earlier layer of Thomas to have included the statement by Jesus to go to James the just.

I hadn't heard that one. The author does portray Jesus as "handing over" the group to James. Can you recommend any particular book on this subject?

Quote:

At any rate, Thomas is a text with a bunch of "Jesus saids". If the mythicist case depends on removing Jesus from THomas then you have simpyl provided ample evidence of my statement.

I don't follow your reasoning. The sayings seem to have "Jesus said" or even just "he said" stuck onto the beginning. That makes it pretty easy to understand the sayings as existing independently with the Jesus attribution as a later development. That doesn't mean that is the way it happened but it would be more difficult to suggest later attribution if, for example, the name/identity of Jesus was incorporated [b]within[b] the text. How does this constitute evidence against the mythical position?

Thanks for the article link.

Amaleq13 · 12-18-2003, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
Anyway, what we got here is "Joe Christ". There's all kinds of "Joe's" (many aren't even named Joe) that can serve as a model. Forgive me for being so banal, but there's enpough "Joe's" out there to invoke that name whether you are referring to anyone specifically or not.

Don't forget that "Joe's" name literally means "God's Salvation". Pretty good name for a dying/resurrecting Messiah whose death was believed to offer salvation.

Elsewhere, someone pointed out that Mark's Gospel, in the original (sorry Yuri

) allegedly original Greek, tends to use the name "Jesus" with an article before it. That gives us something closer to "The Salvation of God", doesn't it?

Is this a title or a guy's name?

MortalWombat · 12-18-2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Is this a title or a guy's name?

This is kind of what I was wondering a while back in this thread, but I didn't get much of a response.

Llyricist · 12-18-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Don't forget that "Joe's" name literally means "God's Salvation". Pretty good name for a dying/resurrecting Messiah whose death was believed to offer salvation.

Is this a title or a guy's name?

Yes, this tends toward being a tick mark on the Myth side. It at least explains quite readily the choice of the particular name if it WAS a myth.

rlogan · 12-19-2003, 01:43 AM

Yeah - that issue was brought up in the thread pertaining to Mike's question directed at the Mythicist school.

I think given the fact the early epistles contained basically no solid historical info on Joe Christ that this generic title explanation fits better. Particularly since we usually see people referred to as "Joe from kansas" or "Joe, son of bill" when they are real.

View Poll Results: Have you ever seen a scholarly presentation of evidence for the HJ?
Yes, definitely	8	14.29%
Yes, I guess so	5	8.93%
I haven't taken enough notice	1	1.79%
No, I don't think so	19	33.93%
No, definitely not	23	41.07%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

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

12-19-2003, 01:43 AM	#60
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Yeah - that issue was brought up in the thread pertaining to Mike's question directed at the Mythicist school. I think given the fact the early epistles contained basically no solid historical info on Joe Christ that this generic title explanation fits better. Particularly since we usually see people referred to as "Joe from kansas" or "Joe, son of bill" when they are real.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.