FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-30-2012, 04:33 PM   #31
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thief of fire View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thief of fire View Post
I mentioned Hannibal as no ones writes about him till after he is dead.
I don't think you're on the right page.
Why?
I think you need to read the linked blog in the o.p.
spin is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:40 PM   #32
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
The jewish roman authors if they were going to create a mythical charactor would never deify a jewish peasant
What on earth are you making assertions about "Jewish Roman authors" for? And how would you ever know what you are babbling about? The thread doesn't ask you to throw your pearls of wisdom before us swine, but to consider the o.p.'s reasoning for reaching the stated position.


sorry you dont appriciate my limited view of the historicty of jesus

Quote:
And how would you ever know what you are babbling about?
ive done a little homework
outhouse is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:43 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
More aptly, I suppose, I'm an agnostic on whether or not a real Jesus existed, but take a mythicist perspective on the surviving evidence.

I'll probably get more useful feedback from here than from my usual readership, so I've written a blog post on the subject. Longer term posters will recognize what a fundamental change this is. I was genuinely surprised to end up there.
Hi Rick, interesting comments, and I can appreciate where you are coming from. I've always thought that there is so little verifiable evidence for Jesus that he may as well not existed. It's like trying to build a 3D image built on a stick figure: any reconstruction is almost certainly wrong. So I've never been far away from Jesus agnosticism myself.

But I've always differentiated between the existence of a historical Jesus and knowing anything about what he did and said.

Paul arguably referred to a man crucified in Paul's recent past. That to me is enough to say, "Yes, there was a historical Jesus", even if it is an (almost!) empty statement. Does your new position involve a change in how you view and understand Paul?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:49 PM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Paul is the weakest argument possible for the historical Jesus as the Marcionites were the first authorities on the letters and they knew Jesus to have been wholly divine.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:51 PM   #35
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
The jewish roman authors if they were going to create a mythical charactor would never deify a jewish peasant
What on earth are you making assertions about "Jewish Roman authors" for? And how would you ever know what you are babbling about? The thread doesn't ask you to throw your pearls of wisdom before us swine, but to consider the o.p.'s reasoning for reaching the stated position.
sorry you dont appriciate my limited view of the historicty of jesus
I don't appreciate untinged assertions generally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
And how would you ever know what you are babbling about?
ive done a little homework
The question is about epistemology: how do you know whatever it is you claim to know? Assertions like yours are non-starters.
spin is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 05:02 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Paul is the weakest argument possible for the historical Jesus as the Marcionites were the first authorities on the letters and they knew Jesus to have been wholly divine.
I think this is where Bayes Theorem will be useful, since it will spell out the premises that inform a decision.

In fact, I think a good exercise would be to do something along those lines. There might be a lot more common ground between historicists, mythicists and agnostics than we think.

For example:

IF [a certain subset of Paul's writings] is genuine to a Paul writing around 50 CE, THEN it is enough to establish there was a historical Jesus.

So your comment above would feed into that, and, while you and I would disagree, then at least we know what we disagree over ("genuine to Paul"), even while we both may agree with the truth of the conditional statement.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 05:02 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
The question is about epistemology: how do you know whatever it is you claim to know?

a years worth of constant reading, vid's on historicity, TV, and even wiki despite its lack of accuracy in some cases. I follow Carrier more then most, but dont stand behind any one scholar


historical jesus is fascinating, there is so little historicity it snot hard to pick up on the basics quickly.

And since most scholars disagree with one another, a personal opinion is just that.

Im even worse with the history of israel
outhouse is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 05:03 PM   #38
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner View Post
More aptly, I suppose, I'm an agnostic on whether or not a real Jesus existed, but take a mythicist perspective on the surviving evidence.

I'll probably get more useful feedback from here than from my usual readership, so I've written a blog post on the subject. Longer term posters will recognize what a fundamental change this is. I was genuinely surprised to end up there.
Hi Rick, interesting comments, and I can appreciate where you are coming from. I've always thought that there is so little verifiable evidence for Jesus that he may as well not existed. It's like trying to build a 3D image built on a stick figure: any reconstruction is almost certainly wrong. So I've never been far away from Jesus agnosticism myself.

But I've always differentiated between the existence of a historical Jesus and knowing anything about what he did and said.

Paul arguably referred to a man crucified in Paul's recent past. That to me is enough to say, "Yes, there was a historical Jesus", even if it is an (almost!) empty statement. Does your new position involve a change in how you view and understand Paul?
Paul never met a Jesus. The best one can get is an apologetic reading of Gal 1:19 that translates τον αδελφον του κυριου to mean "biological brother of Jesus", when that requires deciding that αδελφον must be biological despite Paul's usual usage and that κυριου must mean "Jesus" when Paul is happy to cite from the LXX when κυριος clearly means god. The "brother of the lord" may mean "community leader" or some such position of status.

Paul gives no indication that the people in Jerusalem knew anything about Jesus before he told them and they certainly didn't act as though they had better knowledge of Jesus than Paul, given their adherence to the practice of the law.

What people later did with what Paul said is irrelevant to understanding Paul. They could easily be eisegeting on Paul. You can get no evidence about a Jesus in the real world from Paul. He gives no knowledge of having any.
spin is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 05:04 PM   #39
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
The question is about epistemology: how do you know whatever it is you claim to know?
a years worth of constant reading, vid's on historicity, TV, and even wiki despite its lack of accuracy in some cases. I follow Carrier more then most, but dont stand behind any one scholar
Other people's opinions are still only opinions. You need to be able to provide evidence for your claims.
spin is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 05:05 PM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
I don't appreciate untinged assertions generally.
do you personaly feel the mythers have a leg to stand on?
outhouse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:08 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.