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 07-13-2005, 07:44 PM   #241
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems to me that the pcts need to be defined in a way that is meaningful, and this the problem.
You may be misunderstanding. The percentages are necessary requirements (maximums above which a Jesus so described cannot go). So, an eponymous Jesus cannot be responsible for 100% of the Four Gospel material (or he is more than just "eponymous"). However, a supernatural Jesus could just have gotten crucified and resurrected and very little else (say 10% historicity). Overall, since they are not part of the definitions, I maybe should have left out the maximum percentages.

Quote:
For example, if 80% of the Gospel is historically true (I guess we are excluding the supernatural here),
The stories considered supernatural are not excluded.

Quote:
BUT the part about Jesus being crucified isn't, then that makes all the difference in the world as far as determining whether Jesus founded the religion.
Does it? Recognizably, anyone who did and said 80% of what is described in the Four Gospels would be the one whom we'd probably say "yep--he's the founder." I believe that Muslims deny that Jesus himself was crucified, picking up a Gnostic tradition that someone else was instead. They still believe that Jesus founded Christianity.

Quote:
So does the degree to which Jesus INTENDED on giving his life as a sacrifice.
To be a founder means that he took the first steps in building the movement (later called Christian, reportedly at Antioch).

Quote:
It just seems to me that each potential 'event' must be weighted, and that is a very subjective endeavor. Is there a suggestion here that people will actually agree on the probability data that is input?

ted
I said nothing about probabilities. Are you speaking to Alexander here?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 07-13-2005, 08:02 PM   #242
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
To be a founder means that he took the first steps in building the movement (later called Christian, reportedly at Antioch).
Ok, I think I was reading more into it. A lot of Paul's theology has to do with the crucifixion, and it seems pretty critical as far as sustaining the movement, but I guess that is different than the initial spreading of the movement, whatever it is we mean by 'the movement'.


Quote:
I said nothing about probabilities. Are you speaking to Alexander here?
Yes primarily, sorry. I see the pcts you indicated as interesting and reasonable ways to delineate the type once pcts have been determined using probabilities, which it seems will always be subjective given the type of material we have to work with.

take care,

ted

p.s. I am working on a Rebuttal to Doherty's Article No. 6, The Source of Paul's Gospel. If I can come up with much of value, I'll post it on a new thread here
TedM is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 11:18 PM   #243
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Alexander, thanks for that summary, I will look at it later.

Quote:
Anyhow, my question is... "What is Big Bang Christianity without a historical Jesus?" Please describe it.
BBC, according to Carrier, is a Christianity that was started by Cephas. Any variant of Christianity that came after that, per Carrier, was an offshoot of that cult. Note that, according to this theory, the Ascencion of Isaiah, for example, is not a Christian document because it doesnt talk of a risen Jesus.

Back to your question, "What is Big Bang Christianity without a historical Jesus?"
BBC without a HJ still entails appearances of a 'risen Jesus' to Cephas. The HJ behind these appearances doesn't have to be historical [ie. crucified under Pilate] but could be mythical per Paul (Phillipians). In Phillipians, Jesus is a pre-existent god who comes down and suffers [killed by archons - not Pilate] then rises back and is exalted by being called Jesus.

Bottom line: BBC can accomodate both a HJ or a MJ. It's a tightrope, but there you are.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 12:19 AM   #244
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

TH:
Quote:
I think the opposite. All evidence points to the fact that there were competing factions and several different beliefs about Jesus so I put P(~H/B) to 0.65 and P(H/B) to 0.35.
Alexander:
Quote:
This is clearly a mistake since the prior probability P(~H/B) is “without reference to evidence for the specific case at hand, but is derived from the frequency of causes for comparable events.� Thus TH’s “competing factions and several different beliefs about Jesus� is irrelevant for prior probability.
1. What does the emboldened phrase above mean?
2. How does one obtain "the frequency of causes for comparable events"?
3. Isn't there certain background info codified in the probability P?
Quote:
RC then proceeds to estimate the various probabilities and produce justifications for them.
Is P(~H/B) one of these probabilities?
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 01:44 AM   #245
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman
In Phillipians, Jesus is a pre-existent god who comes down and suffers [killed by archons - not Pilate] then rises back and is exalted by being called Jesus.
Where in Philippians does it say that Jesus was killed by archons?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 02:52 AM   #246
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon
Where in Philippians does it say that Jesus was killed by archons?
I mixed two Pauline passages there. He says Paul was killed by archons in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8. Christ is portrayed as a pre-existent god in Philippians 2:6-11.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 07:21 AM   #247
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman
In Phillipians, Jesus is a pre-existent god who comes down and suffers... then rises back and is exalted by being called Jesus.
Actually, I think that passage is saying that Christ incarnated as the man named Jesus, and then ascended as the Lord Jesus Christ. "Jesus" is just "Joshua", a common name for that era. The "name which is above all names" is "Christ Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ".

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

So "Christ Jesus" was in the form of God.

7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

He took on the likeness of men, and humbled himself and suffered crucifixion.

9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,

God exalted this person who humbled himself, and gave this person a special name. What was the name of the person who humbled himself and was crucified, and whom God exalted and gave the special name to? Jesus.

11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The special name is the one that every tongue confesses to: that of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So "Christ Jesus" comes down to earth, is incarnated as "Jesus", suffers crucifixion and rises as "Lord Jesus Christ".

Paul uses the expression "the name of Lord Jesus Christ" in the majority of cases. He gives no indication that "Jesus" itself is a special name that I know of.

Is this not a 'smoking gun' that Paul is separating out a man called "Jesus" who was crucified, and because of his obedience ascends to Heaven where he is given the name "Christ Jesus"?
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 07:39 AM   #248
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Sayd Gak:

Quote:
The "name which is above all names" is "Christ Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ".
One thing that bugs me about this is that xristos isn't a name, but an idiosyncratic translation of Hebrew mashiach and what's more it was a recent translation, so I can't see any time for its title to have been in vogue long enough for it to have been transferred to Jesus as a title. This suggests that calling Jesus Christ name is not a transparent statement at all (especially when kurios another title is added).

I'd say this stuff about Jesus Christ being a name rather than just Jesus gives the impression of a later development.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 07:47 AM   #249
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Sayd Gak:


One thing that bugs me about this is that xristos isn't a name, but an idiosyncratic translation of Hebrew mashiach and what's more it was a recent translation, so I can't see any time for its title to have been in vogue long enough for it to have been transferred to Jesus as a title. This suggests that calling Jesus Christ name is not a transparent statement at all (especially when kurios another title is added).

I'd say this stuff about Jesus Christ being a name rather than just Jesus gives the impression of a later development.spin
It seems to me that if the name fit in the minds of the early believers in the heart of Jerusalem, it wouldn't take long for a title to be transferred to Jesus if he was believed to be the risen Messiah. Surely, they would be looking for something appropriate to apply. And, maybe the newness of the title was 'seized upon' in part because it was 'new' and therefore befitting their new Savior.

ted
TedM is offline  
Old 07-14-2005, 08:02 AM   #250
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
Default

Quote:
God exalted this person who humbled himself, and gave this person a special name. What was the name of the person who humbled himself and was crucified, and whom God exalted and gave the special name to? Jesus.
"9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth"
He was an unnamed god. He was exalted and named Jesus after he humbled himself.
Ted Hoffman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:42 AM.

Top

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