Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 02-07-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

Im just wondering if some could provide sources for these claims. That Luke "changed" the nature of the census to create a myth to look like history seems very unlikely. There were actually two census' one in 5-6BCE and the other about 4CE.

What is your source for this information? The notion will appear more likely when you have accurate information. According to Josephus, the only census conducted under Quirinius was in 6CE and it resulted from Rome taking direct control of the territory. This was standard practice whenever they assumed direct control of a client territory and it only concerned that territory. The requirement the author of Luke describes (Joseph had to "return" to Bethlehem because his several-generation-gone ancestor was David is ridiculous and contrary to known Roman practices. This fabricated requirement clearly has more to do with the author's belief that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem than it does any historical reality.

Quote:

There are other lines of evidence. For example, Josephus in Antiquities makes two references to Jesus. He wrote in association with James "he brother of Jesus, who was called christ". He also wrote "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus..."

Why don't you stick with defending what you've already argued before reopening that giant can of worms? There are several earlier threads where both have been discussed ad nauseum. IMO, neither can be reliably identified as original to Josephus but I encourage you to search for those threads and read the relevant discussions at Kirby's website in order to reach an informed conclusion.

greyline · 02-07-2005, 05:14 PM

I don't know how many people lived somewhere other than their ancestral land or birthplace, but given that people survived by farming, the entire fabric of society would fall apart if they all had to physically relocate just to fill out a census.

Agemegos · 02-08-2005, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrDarwin

Because Christians keep trying to convince us that it really happened.

And because they demand that we make drastic changes to our social behaviour, surrender our moral judgement, and tithe, tithe, tithe because of it.

If the Christians (and the Muslims) would sit quietly like the Jews and recite their re-tread fantasies to themselves, we wouldn't be any more concerned about them than we are about the Shintos and the Sambia flute-guardians. But since there is a real danger that they might be able to impose their beliefs on us through public institutions, it becomes important for public policy whether those beliefs are well-founded or whether they are a tissue of fictions, delusions, and cant.

Clutch · 02-08-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I disagree, Clutch. The debate you've described is the one between mainstream ("liberal") scholarship and its conservative opponents. The MJ/HJ debate is about how the texts should be read -- what axioms to bring to the text (literature or history?) and how they refer to each other (can we back-read the Gospels into Paul?), as well as what the origin of the Savior figure is (overlay of historical figure vs historicized mythic figure).

The latter comes out of the comparative religions scholarship of the prewar era, most of which is pretty poor, but the central realization, that Jesus owes a lot to Hellenistic myth and mystery religions, is probably accurate. To struggle against that, modern scholars have emphasized the "Jewishness of Jesus" (see the edited volume by Charlesworth Jesus' Jewishness for one example) which has a twofold "historical apologetics" function. First, it fights back against the comparative religions arguments by making Jesus so Jewish he can't be yanked out of that background to become another interchangeable Hellenistic god-man; and second, it creates a historical social milieu for Jesus which then can be used as a support for Jesus' historicity.

In other words, the HJ crowd will ask, looking at a specific pericope, what here goes back to Jesus? -- which is your description -- while an MJer will say to herself how was this passage created?

Vorkosigan

Vork, I think the sort of dispute you mention here falls largely on the side of the Descriptionist approach: that is, what methodology is appropriate for deciding what descriptions can be applied to Jesus? I don't see why someone couldn't accept a very sceptical position on this front, and yet take this as evidence that most of what's been said about Jesus, whoever he was, is false.

Amaleq13 · 02-08-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch

But the latter view seems pretty close to what someone like Vinnie thinks.

I disagree. I think he has much more in common with the former since he appears to believe that historically reliable information about Jesus can be obtained from the Gospel stories.

Quote:

I suspect that many outright atheists have little attachment to mythicism because at some level they believe the bar is set almost trivially low for the mere truth of "Jesus existed". Sure -- they think -- but, heck, he could have just been a local sage who memorized and recited some of the sayings he encountered, did some carpentry on the side, and died in an accident. Whereas for some mythicist-inclined folks, that's just a way of saying there was no Jesus.

I agree and I would also tend to consider this scenario to be more consistent with a mythical position than a historical one.

Quote:

The point is, people could generally agree on the relevant historical claims while falling on different sides of the H/M divide, simply by failing to share intuitions about how names refer -- via some appropriate causal chain in their use, or via the preponderance of descriptions and connotations associated with them.

I think I agree but I'm not entirely sure I'm tracking you here. I'm hoping that your exchanges with Vorkosigan will make it easier to know whose side I'm on.

For whatever it is worth, I think this recent subdebate with Killer Mike is a more restricted argument. He has essentially asserted that the case for historicity is so strong that any doubt is unreasonable. I consider that position to be unsustainable.

norma98026 · 02-16-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Even if we assume this is true, aren't you confusing consistent copying of the text with confirmation of the contents?

I don't think so although I could be wrong. The two ideas I'm trying to convey are:

1) Consistent copying of the text means the original content was preserved.

2) The Bible was written about events that happened to a recognized people group (Abraham and his descendants) in a known part of the world (Egypt, the Middle East, Persia), thereby giving us reason to believe it's about real people who really did experience something extraordinary. If the book did not concern real people in real places, we could dismiss it as fantasy.

Norma in Seattle

norma98026 · 02-16-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crucifiction

Science can't "prove" that there isn't a galaxy out there made of cheese, or that a human can't turn into a frog for no apparent reason either; but there's no reason to believe that these things are true, and simple reason tells one that these things are untrue. Same goes for Spontaneous Human Resurrection.

I'm not sure what you mean by simple reason, but I think that's an awfully thin sheet of ice upon which to set one's assumptions. Simple reason in some cases could indicate common sense combined with incomplete information, such as when our common sense tells us a plane shouldn't be able to rise into the air. How do we know that a person could not be resurrected from the dead, given the right conditions?

There are reasons to investigate the resurrection of Jesus:
1. he predicted his death and resurrection
2. he died as predicted
3. his tomb was found empty as predicted
4. his followers, including the skeptics, saw him alive afterward
5. he was seen by over 500 people
6. his body was never found
7. the lives of his followers, distraught by his death, were transformed into people who were willing to die for what they'd seen and heard
8. their claims spread all over the world, despite opposition and persecution
9. we're discussing it today

It there were nothing to the message, why is it so important to people today?

Norma in Seattle

Amaleq13 · 02-16-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

1) Consistent copying of the text means the original content was preserved.

You can't make that claim unless you have a copy of the original text. What has been copied consistently are texts that date several hundred years after the originals were assumed to have been written. If we consider earlier references from Church Fathers, there was either significant textual variation or they were paraphrasing.

Quote:

2) The Bible was written about events that happened to a recognized people group (Abraham and his descendants) in a known part of the world (Egypt, the Middle East, Persia), thereby giving us reason to believe it's about real people who really did experience something extraordinary. If the book did not concern real people in real places, we could dismiss it as fantasy.

This criterion seems to me to be unreasonably low since it would require us to assume that any historical fiction was actually true. How do you eliminate the possibility that what was written was what the author wished or imagined had happened in the past?

norma98026 · 02-16-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Norma,

Nothing in the Bible was written by anyone who ever met Jesus. Even if we did have an eyewitness account (which we don't) it would not follow that such a person necessarily had any personal credibility.

How do you know, Diogenes? I mean, how did you reach these conclusions? To say that you know that none of the authors of the Bible knew Jesus personally is a broad claim. Why should I take your word as fact and not the word of people who are regarded by historians as primary sources?

John (see John chapter 20) wrote that Jesus did many miraculous signs, not recorded in his writings, in the presence of his disciples , implying that he wrote just enough for us to get an idea not only of what Jesus did but also of the relationship he had with his followers, i.e. Jesus and his followers walked and talked and discussed things together. In addition John said he wrote what he did so that we [the readers] would know that Jesus is Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing we may have life.

Norma in Seattle

Sparrow · 02-16-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norma98026

I don't think so although I could be wrong. The two ideas I'm trying to convey are:

1) Consistent copying of the text means the original content was preserved.

2) The Bible was written about events that happened to a recognized people group (Abraham and his descendants) in a known part of the world (Egypt, the Middle East, Persia), thereby giving us reason to believe it's about real people who really did experience something extraordinary. If the book did not concern real people in real places, we could dismiss it as fantasy.

Norma in Seattle

Have you ever read a historical novel? I have one that has TV's Lt. Columbo invesstigating the Kennedy assasination. Is it impossible that some characters in an ancient document might be fictional characters set in factual locations?

View Poll Results: Was there a single, historical person at the root of the tales of Jesus Christ?
No. IMO Jesus is completely mythical.	99	29.46%
IMO Yes. Though many tales were added over time, there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus.	105	31.25%
Insufficient data. I withhold any opinion.	132	39.29%
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll

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

02-07-2005, 05:14 PM	#302
greyline Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Doing Yahzi's laundry Posts: 792	I don't know how many people lived somewhere other than their ancestral land or birthplace, but given that people survived by farming, the entire fabric of society would fall apart if they all had to physically relocate just to fill out a census.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.