Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 02-06-2010, 06:31 AM

Ellegard's argument that the teacher of righteousness is the root?

Quote:

Ellegård interprets this as one evidence that the "Damascus" that is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles in fact is Qumran. St. Paul was on his way to Damascus when he had a vision of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Ellegård

gurugeorge · 02-06-2010, 06:32 AM

I've spent the last few years on and off hanging around here, and I still can't quite put my finger on what the problem here is, it's really quite subtle.

Here's another attempt:-

For centuries you had this figure, who almost everyone believed was a historical figure, who was a kind of a superhero figure. The SUPERHERO Jesus was considered the HISTORICAL JESUS by most people throughout history. The NT texts were considered to be pretty good proof of the existence of this superhero (of course I'm using "superhero" anachronistically here, just to get a point across quickly, and because it's amusing

)

Then along comes the rationalist and scientific revolutions. People start being sceptical about miracles, superhero-type figures, etc. It is understood that the NT texts couldn't reasonably be construed as proof of the historical existence of a superhero figure (Hume, etc. - basically, you can't rule out superheros apriori, but you'd need stronger evidence than the NT to reasonably allow yourself to believe in the NT one. Epistemologically, the NT fails in its purpose of proving that a superhero existed.)

Then along come some rationalists who are also Christians. They want to keep their Christian-religion-cake and eat it. They want to somehow preserve the religion, while rationalising and ditching the superstition from its central idea.

So they take the (prima facie very reasonable, if you're not alert) position that while there obviously cannot have been a historical superhero Jesus, there must have been a historical human Jesus behind the historical superhero Jesus story.

This is just totally does not follow.

The lunatic thing in all this is how the priorly-presumed historicality of the story about the superhero Jesus is just translated across to the presumed historicality of a human figure hypothesised to be behind the myth - without any questioning of this move at all.

i.e. (damn this is difficult to put into words, and I still feel I'm not getting it across) there's a whole bunch of "historical-supportness" that was priorly attached to the superhero Jesus' story that's just shifted across to being supportive of an entirely hypothetical "human Jesus".

But once you ditch the possibility of a superhero Jesus, the evidentiary status of the original texts is up in the air. You cannot presume they are about a HISTORICAL ANYTHING.

The whole thing has to be looked at painstakingly from scratch, in a context in which "historical Jesus" is only one among a number of apriori equally plausible options.

andrewcriddle · 02-06-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I've spent the last few years on and off hanging around here, and I still can't quite put my finger on what the problem here is, it's really quite subtle.

Here's another attempt:-

For centuries you had this figure, who almost everyone believed was a historical figure, who was a kind of a superhero figure. The SUPERHERO Jesus was considered the HISTORICAL JESUS by most people throughout history. The NT texts were considered to be pretty good proof of the existence of this superhero (of course I'm using "superhero" anachronistically here, just to get a point across quickly, and because it's amusing

)

Then along comes the rationalist and scientific revolutions. People start being sceptical about miracles, superhero-type figures, etc. It is understood that the NT texts couldn't reasonably be construed as proof of the historical existence of a superhero figure (Hume, etc. - basically, you can't rule out superheros apriori, but you'd need stronger evidence than the NT to reasonably allow yourself to believe in the NT one. Epistemologically, the NT fails in its purpose of proving that a superhero existed.)

Then along come some rationalists who are also Christians. They want to keep their Christian-religion-cake and eat it. They want to somehow preserve the religion, while rationalising and ditching the superstition from its central idea.

So they take the (prima facie very reasonable, if you're not alert) position that while there obviously cannot have been a historical superhero Jesus, there must have been a historical human Jesus behind the historical superhero Jesus story.

This is just totally does not follow.

The lunatic thing in all this is how the priorly-presumed historicality of the story about the superhero Jesus is just translated across to the presumed historicality of a human figure hypothesised to be behind the myth - without any questioning of this move at all.

i.e. (damn this is difficult to put into words, and I still feel I'm not getting it across) there's a whole bunch of "historical-supportness" that was priorly attached to the superhero Jesus' story that's just shifted across to being supportive of an entirely hypothetical "human Jesus".

But once you ditch the possibility of a superhero Jesus, the evidentiary status of the original texts is up in the air. You cannot presume they are about a HISTORICAL ANYTHING.

The whole thing has to be looked at painstakingly from scratch, in a context in which "historical Jesus" is only one among a number of apriori equally plausible options.

The problem (or a problem) with this is that it seems to be a claim that even if the stories about Jesus in the synoptic tradition largely go back to before say 70 CE they would still not be prima facie about a historical anything.

I can understand why someone might hold this position but it comes across as being more a result of anti-religious presuppositions than of historical study.

Maybe it is my own Christian belief that makes me react this way but I don't really think so. I strongly suspect that many non-Christians would feel the same.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 02-06-2010, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In general, I think the Testimonium Flavianum is the best argument for the existence of an historical Jesus.

No; not even close. It's merely a convenient snippet of data with which to point out the absurdity of the mythical Jesus claim; the intense efforts made to get rid of this piece of evidence merely indicate to the critical the motives behind the claim. No rational approach to anything consists of trying to get rid of the data and then arguing from a manufactured absence.

Quote:

what would people consider the best three arguments in favor of an historical Jesus?

Education, education and education.

The idea that Jesus never existed is only credible in the absence of this. Fortunately for those espousing it, we no longer live in an age when everyone reads Vergil at school.

Whether the Christian claims about him are true is quite another question, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 02-06-2010, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

At the end of the day, the best argument to support the historical Jesus is weakness of the mythicist way of discussing the evidence. For instance, if the historical Jesus was never questioned before the Enlightenment, why did the Christians forge Tacitus’ Annals 15:44?

But, such argument is extremely weak since it can be shown that there were Christians who did not believe Jesus was human and that there were Christians who did not believe in Jesus of Nazareth at all.

And further, based on a writer called Tertullian, the Divinty of Jesus was without question or agreed.

Marcion did indeed question the "historical Jesus" over 1800 years ago. It must not be forgotten that a "Phantom" is not an "historical Jesus" since such an entity cannot be produced through sexual reproduction.

The Jesus Christs of Valentinus, Marcus and Basilides are not "historical Jesuses" since they were not ever considered human at all or from Jerusalem or Galilee.

It must also be realised that the Church writers did not ever argue against the Divinity of Jesus.

Minimalist · 02-06-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

The problem (or a problem) with this is that it seems to be a claim that even if the stories about Jesus in the synoptic tradition largely go back to before say 70 CE they would still not be prima facie about a historical anything.

Stories about Osiris go back before 3,000 BC. Yet, we can all rest assured that xtians would scream bloody murder that Osiris is not historical.

"Our boy is real but all other gods are false" is typical xtian special pleading.

Toto · 02-06-2010, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

...

Then along come some rationalists who are also Christians. They want to keep their Christian-religion-cake and eat it. They want to somehow preserve the religion, while rationalising and ditching the superstition from its central idea.

So they take the (prima facie very reasonable, if you're not alert) position that while there obviously cannot have been a historical superhero Jesus, there must have been a historical human Jesus behind the historical superhero Jesus story.

...

Except that these people were not Christians - they were Deists. The idea of a merely human Jesus invalidates Christianity.

Petergdi · 02-06-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Stories about Osiris go back before 3,000 BC. Yet, we can all rest assured that xtians would scream bloody murder that Osiris is not historical.

Do Christians actually do any such thing? It seems to be a common atheist complaint, but I haven't actually seen it. It certainly isn't universal, and I don't think it is even common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

"Our boy is real but all other gods are false" is typical xtian special pleading.

Christians do not normally deny the existence of other gods. They deny the godhood of other gods, and that is quite a different thing.

Peter.

aa5874 · 02-06-2010, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

At the end of the day, the best argument to support the historical Jesus is weakness of the mythicist way of discussing the evidence. For instance, if the historical Jesus was never questioned before the Enlightenment, why did the Christians forge Tacitus’ Annals 15:44?

But, such argument is extremely weak since it can be shown that there were Christians who did not believe Jesus was human and that there were Christians who did not believe in Jesus of Nazareth at all.

And further, based on a writer called Tertullian, the Divinty of Jesus was without question or agreed.

Marcion did indeed question the "historical Jesus" over 1800 years ago. It must not be forgotten that a "Phantom" is not an "historical Jesus" since such an entity cannot be produced through sexual reproduction.

The Jesus Christs of Valentinus, Marcus and Basilides are not "historical Jesuses" since they were not ever considered human at all or from Jerusalem or Galilee.

It must also be realised that the Church writers did not ever argue against the Divinity of Jesus. And oddly no Church writer used Tacitus Annals 15.44 to show Jesus was human even though appearing to be aware of the passage.

Amazingly up to the 5th century a writer under the name of Sulpitius Severus wrote about the persecution of Christians under Nero and nothing about "Christus" can be found.

Sulpitius Severus "Sacred History 29

Quote:

In the meantime, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium.

But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city.

And in fact, Nero could not by any means he tried escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders.

He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent.

Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night...

Now examine Tacitus Annals 15.44

Quote:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired..

The passage on "Christus" is missing in "Sacred History" even up to the 5th century

Even Josephus in trying to show Jesus was on earth preferred the forged "TF" which claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

There are no real good arguments for an HJ.

Roger Pearse · 02-06-2010, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Stories about Osiris go back before 3,000 BC. Yet, we can all rest assured that xtians would scream bloody murder that Osiris is not historical.

Do Christians actually do any such thing? It seems to be a common atheist complaint, but I haven't actually seen it. It certainly isn't universal, and I don't think it is even common.

It is a standard piece of late antique Christian apologetic that gods like Osiris are really just ancient kings who were deified at some remote period. I find it in the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, for instance.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

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

02-06-2010, 06:32 AM	#12
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	I've spent the last few years on and off hanging around here, and I still can't quite put my finger on what the problem here is, it's really quite subtle. Here's another attempt:- For centuries you had this figure, who almost everyone believed was a historical figure, who was a kind of a superhero figure. The SUPERHERO Jesus was considered the HISTORICAL JESUS by most people throughout history. The NT texts were considered to be pretty good proof of the existence of this superhero (of course I'm using "superhero" anachronistically here, just to get a point across quickly, and because it's amusing ) Then along comes the rationalist and scientific revolutions. People start being sceptical about miracles, superhero-type figures, etc. It is understood that the NT texts couldn't reasonably be construed as proof of the historical existence of a superhero figure (Hume, etc. - basically, you can't rule out superheros apriori, but you'd need stronger evidence than the NT to reasonably allow yourself to believe in the NT one. Epistemologically, the NT fails in its purpose of proving that a superhero existed.) Then along come some rationalists who are also Christians. They want to keep their Christian-religion-cake and eat it. They want to somehow preserve the religion, while rationalising and ditching the superstition from its central idea. So they take the (prima facie very reasonable, if you're not alert) position that while there obviously cannot have been a historical superhero Jesus, there must have been a historical human Jesus behind the historical superhero Jesus story. This is just totally does not follow. The lunatic thing in all this is how the priorly-presumed historicality of the story about the superhero Jesus is just translated across to the presumed historicality of a human figure hypothesised to be behind the myth - without any questioning of this move at all. i.e. (damn this is difficult to put into words, and I still feel I'm not getting it across) there's a whole bunch of "historical-supportness" that was priorly attached to the superhero Jesus' story that's just shifted across to being supportive of an entirely hypothetical "human Jesus". *But once you ditch the possibility of a superhero Jesus, the evidentiary status* of the original texts is up in the air. You cannot presume they are about a HISTORICAL ANYTHING.** The whole thing has to be looked at painstakingly from scratch, in a context in which "historical Jesus" is only one among a number of apriori equally plausible options.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.