Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-21-2012, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Best according to whom? Mythicists? The consensus is that Josephus (in the first passage) did indeed say something about Jesus and virtually no experts think anything was altered in the second reference. That's almost entirely an area where mythicist explanations come in to play.

Perhaps he said that Jesus didn't exist ...

What about the letter of Big J. for Christ's sake?
What could be the mythicist explanation for Big J's letter?

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/eusebius.jpg

LegionOnomaMoi · 05-21-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Perhaps he said that Jesus didn't exist.

Perhaps he said aliens built the pyramids. We have no evidence to suggest either.

Quote:

You can ask the consensus how they managed to cast doubt on Josephus using the words 'Christ' while still claiming that Josephus managed to produce what would then be a non-existent reference when referring to James.

What!?

Quote:

Or how (according to you), Josephus thought of the two James's as the same person when you have proclaimed that they were different people

I don't think that Josephus thought anything of the sort. Josephus identified a James, the brother of Jesus. Period. No other James. James, the brother of Jesus is identified in the synoptic tradition and Paul. However, so is what appears to be another James who isn't the brother of Jesus, but a disciple.

Quote:

But as the academic consensus can't even tell us whether or not Q existed,

Or whether spacetime is continuous. Or whether Xenophon more accurately represents Socrates than Plato. Or whether cognition is embodied. What on earth does disagreement concerning details have to do with a point everybody agrees on?

Quote:

you really are going to face a major battle trying to convince us that they are experts who get results.

I have no doubt. But then, I've also faced major battles trying to convince conservative christians that there are in fact major incongruities between the gospels. There's no arguing with faith.

Steven Carr · 05-21-2012, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Perhaps he said that Jesus didn't exist.

Perhaps he said aliens built the pyramids. We have no evidence to suggest either.

You have no evidence as to what Josephus originally wrote?

But surely people have reconstructed what he originally wrote.

Thank you for claiming there is no evidence to suggest what Josephus originally wrote.

That is a rare moment of truth in the world of reconstructing imaginary texts that is often played by mainstream Biblical scholars who have no need to see original manuscripts to tell us what they contained.

Steven Carr · 05-21-2012, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

But as the academic consensus can't even tell us whether or not Q existed,

Or whether spacetime is continuous. Or whether Xenophon more accurately represents Socrates than Plato. Or whether cognition is embodied. What on earth does disagreement concerning details have to do with a point everybody agrees on?

Oh god, another person who brings nothing to any discussion.

Fact. Historical Jesus studies have crashed and burned for over a century.

Even New Testament scholars write articles complaining about the bogus methods used by New Testament scholars.

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/20...ark-community/

'“The Markan community has failed to provide even the semblance of a control on readings of the Gospel of Mark. . . . .The reason for this is that virtually every scholar who discovers a Markan community behind the Gospel . . . discovers a different Markan community.” (152)

NT scholars continue positing a “community” behind Mark and other NT texts because “that is what we do”, and as historical critics most operate with a sense that the provenance of a text can provide a necessary control on interpretation. (193)

The Markan “community” is “the product of highly speculative, viciously circular and ultimately unpersuasive and inconclusive reading.”'

Substitute historical Jesus for Markan community and you have an accurate portrayal of historical Jesus studies.

Stop telling us these people are real experts. Their expertise consists in , as Bart Ehrman has demonstrated, producing imaginary documents and claiming they are evidence.

aa5874 · 05-21-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

.....3) Books like The Jesus Mysteries or The Jesus Puzzle are widely read, yet are written by people without PhDs and are published by companies which are not known for publishing scholarship.....

I think you are a specialist in Bait and switch. Examine excerpts from one of your previous posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

.......This is all lovely bait and switch. But getting back to the issue, you were the one talking about specialists. I merely called you on it because almost none of the enormous number of analyses on the historical Jesus was written by someone with a PhD in history.....

Keep talking. Is not this bait and switch???

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

....... Most historical scholarship is not written by people with degrees which include the word "history" because historical study has become so specialized that "history" is usually dropped from degree titles. There's no point......

We are listening!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

.......Are you seriously asserting that, for example, someone with a degree in classics is not qualified to discuss classical history? How about archaeologists? Are they out to? Where does you bizzare, ridiculous demarcation end?....

Bait and Switch!!! You can say that again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

....... Because quite apart from NT studies, your little "only someone with a PhD in history is qualified to talk about history" approach would be rejected by any academic....

Bait and Switch!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

.......Ask Richard Carrier if the only people qualified to talk about "history" are those who have a PhD which actually says "X history" or "history." Your distinction is ignored by historians (including those with degrees which include the word "history") so there isn't any reason for anyone to think it has any value...

Based on your posts I think you are a Bait and switch specialist. You say one thing and then later another. Billions of non-specialists will decide whether or not Jesus was a REAL human being.

You very well know that it is NOT required at all, at all, at all, that any one to be a specialist in any field to make an assessment of Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1, John 1, Mark 6, Mark 9, Acts 1, Galatians 1, Galatians 4, Romans 1 and 1 Cor. 15 where Jesus is CLEARLY described as the Son of God, the Creator, that Walked on WATER, Transfigured, resurrected and Ascended.

In the Existing Codices Jesus is described as the Son of God and Born of a Ghost.

It does NOT require any specialist to EXAMINE EVIDENCE found in WRITTEN statements.

Everyday, throughout the WORLD, ordinary people present and examine WRITTEN statements.

It makes NO sense at all to even attempt to claim that people who are NOT specialist argue for a non-historical Jesus when there are BILLIONS of non-specialists Christians who ARGUE that Jesus was a figure of history but existed as the Son of a Holy Ghost and also the Son of God.

I had enough of your Bait and Switch and Rhetoric.

You cannot provide a Shred of evidence for an historical Jesus--there is NO way you can outperform Ehrman--and he is a Specialist--and a Disaster in "Did Jesus Exist?"

Toto · 05-21-2012, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Yes, it makes no sense, but that has been the observation of a number of people.

So far, your basis for this assertion is some member who claimed to be a graduate student quoting some professor. So where does the claim about "a number of people" fit in?

Sorry, I'm not going to track down all the references I have found over these years.

Quote:

...
3) Books like The Jesus Mysteries or The Jesus Puzzle are widely read, yet are written by people without PhDs and are published by companies which are not known for publishing scholarship. Apparently, there is a market for this sort of work. An otherwise unknown scholar of German studies, an individual with an undergraduate degree in classical languages (or was it classics? I think it was classical languages), a then graduate student who eventually received his PhD in ancient history, etc., all become well-known and widely read. More people know Doherty's name and are familiar with his work than the work of Lakoff, Quine, Grice, Feldman, etc. In other words, people can spend years studying and establishing themselves as the foremost authorities in a particular field, and not attain the following that Freke and Gandy have, despite the blatant errors of their books. The mythicist argument seems to be a path to success even if you don't have the background of a specialist.

What's the point here? There is popular culture and there is academia. Freke and Gandy have a small portion of the success of Dan Brown, a historicist with even less accuracy or qualifications.

Quote:

Yet among the foremost critics of the historical Jesus quest are christians. Why? Because history is about what most likely happened, and miracles are by definition unlikely. A historical Jesus will never be a christian Jesus. And the Jesus we find in so many historical accounts of his life is anything but christian. He may has well never have existed. To say that one can say anything "as long as he existed", and that this explains why virtually nobody with any expertise believes that he didn't exist, is fantasy. Why would it somehow not matter to christians if Jesus existed but was a cynic philosopher eaten by dogs who never rose from the dead, but that he never existed at all is off the table? What possible logic could be behind such an explanation of the utter lack of virtually any specialist arguing that Jesus didn't exist?

If you don't like my explanation, just state your disagreement and go on. Don't keep dragging this out.

I have just observed that Christian apologists get overly upset over the idea that Jesus never existed, and that some Christians pitch their religious conversion attempts by starting with the claim that historians all admit that Jesus existed, and that this makes Christianity different from other religions.

Quote:

How do you find such articles? I have access to JSTOR, academic search premier, project muse, and many others (apart from actually having the harvard library to go to). How do you judge what one can "find" in "a peer reviewed article"?

There are indexes, and there are people knowledgeable in the area. I have challenged people to find such an article, and nothing has turned up.

Quote:

We have coins of depicting mythical figures. We have forgeries of ancient authors. We have busts which have no relation to the figures in question. What do we have for the majority of figures from ancient history that makes our evidence for the mere existence of Jesus so problematic?

I don't think you are serious in asking this question again. My answer stands.

Quote:

According to Bultmann "we can know enough of his [Jesus'] message to make for ourselves a consistent picture."

Yes, and he didn't use the idea that Christianity needed a historical Jesus as an explanation.

Sorry, I've run out of time for this exchange. Do you actually have a point here?

Solo · 05-21-2012, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

...
Bultmann and others thought that virtually all of the NT was myth and little to nothing went back to the historical Jesus, but recognized that there is no explanation for the origins of chrisitanity that better fits the data than that someone named Jesus lived, gained a following, was executed, and followers built a tradition around this.

Do you have some explicit quote from Bultman that says this? I think that Bultman just said that anyone who doubted that Jesus existed was crazy. He had no evaluation of how a historical Jesus was a better explanation for the origins of Christianity than a mythical Jesus - and since the origins of Christianity lie with the followers and not the historical Jesus, it is not clear how a historical Jesus fits into that better explanation of the data.

Bultmann's theology does not lend itself to simple characterizations. Bultmann, true, dismissed Jesus' non-existence as "ludicrous" because he considered such a view as lacking in coherent exposition. In crudest terms, he considered the historical fact of kerygma of the early church a sufficient proof of a historical existence of Jesus as the nominal founder. On the other hand he rejected the gospel views of Jesus as historical accounts; in fact he considered them mythical, and claimed they cound not be admitted as having been 'real' events if one uses the modern, secular historical methods. Nor could one discover, by those methods, which events or pronouncement of Jesus were authentic. He claimed famously that neither Paul nor John's gospel referenced a historical figure.

The overriding interest of Bultmann was an answer to the question whether the myth of Christ had any modern meaning. He thought it did if the eschatological myth was translated into existentialist terms.

See Bultmann's defense of his manifest "New Testament and Mythology" in Kerygma and Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Best,
Jiri

outhouse · 05-21-2012, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

LOL thats what happens when you create false history

Price does not create false history. That's his problem. Dan Brown created false history and he made millions.

Quote:

Ehrman, Reed, Meyers, Crosson, Borg all have been on TV lately

TV seems to be a major source of your knowledge.

attacking the messenger only shows your weakness in knowledge.

dan brown is a author not a scholar, epic fail on your part. he probably is much more popular though then price, who has absolutely no popularity.

outhouse · 05-21-2012, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In short, we can drop the "specialist" rhetoric as wool over the eyes.

Or, we can accept the fact that you responded without knowing what you were talking about or what I was saying.

This is all lovely bait and switch. But getting back to the issue, you were the one talking about specialists. I merely called you on it because almost none of the enormous number of analyses on the historical Jesus was written by someone with a PhD in history

Like most historical analyses. Why? Because "degree in history" isn't saying anthing. Most historical scholarship is not written by people with degrees which include the word "history" because historical study has become so specialized that "history" is usually dropped from degree titles. There's no point. Are you seriously asserting that, for example, someone with a degree in classics is not qualified to discuss classical history? How about archaeologists? Are they out to? Where does you bizzare, ridiculous demarcation end? Because quite apart from NT studies, your little "only someone with a PhD in history is qualified to talk about history" approach would be rejected by any academic. Ask Richard Carrier if the only people qualified to talk about "history" are those who have a PhD which actually says "X history" or "history." Your distinction is ignored by historians (including those with degrees which include the word "history") so there isn't any reason for anyone to think it has any value.

he has thrown out cultural anthropology as well in past debates.

I think your on to something

Toto · 05-21-2012, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

..
dan brown is a author not a scholar, epic fail on your part.

No, that was my point. Legion seemed to claim that writing a mythcist book was a lucrative career path.

Quote:

he probably is much more popular though then price, who has absolutely no popularity.

Price has enough of a fan base to keep him going; just not the millions that Dan Brown claims.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.