aa5874

I understand you very well. You want to use your imagination as evidence, as the truth.

The authors of the NT and the church writers wrote fiction but you imagine that what they wrote must true, so you imagine that words have any meaning that you imagine.

I understand you.

It is beyond your imagination that the NT CAN EVER BE FICTION.

How did Jesus blind Saul? Was it just his imagination or fiction?
How did over 500 people see Jesus after he was resurrected, was this just Paul's imagination or fiction?

I say fiction, what do you imagine?

spamandham

Are you suggesting that self sacrifice was a new idea? If so, how is it that Paul claims the death and resurrection were revealed through scriptures (Romans 1, Gal 2), and not through men (Gal 1)?

I did not say 'fictional'. I said 'hero biography', which is shorthand for various specific biographical types based on mythical themes. The genre does not tell us whether or not there is a historical core, but it does tell us there need not be.

I already did, but since you seem too lazy to use google, I'll make it trivial for you just this once. In regards to Mark, which is the only gospel I consider relevant, the similar texts are Xenophon's Memorabilia, Philodemus' Life of Epicururus, Philostrapus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana, and Prophyry's Life of Pythagorus. All of these are available on line and can be found easily typing those exact expressions in. Please don't ask for links, this is already 10x more than you've provided.

Good for you. I'm not a fan of that either. However, I do recognize that when I go against the grain, I have to support it with more than hand waving.

What oral transmissions are you referring to? Although mostly illiterate, the culture was not totally illiterate. Important things were written down. That's why Paul's letters and the gospels exist. The gospels themselves refer many times to scribes - so literate men obviously existed. Jesus supposedly wrote something in the sand. Mark 13:14 notes "let the reader understand" - indicating it was intended to be read rather than being a written form of an oral record.

The standard is not 100%, it's maybe about 70%. Your peasant idea comes nowhere near that. It's closer to the 10% range at best, because it requires you to invent details in an ad hoc manner to explain away the difficulties. One example of that is the vague 'oral transmission' idea you just promoted. When you have to make things up totally unsupported by the evidence to keep your premise plausible, you've entered the realm of apologetics rather than history.

That's a good start. Why were they doing that?

spamandham

If you don't think 'hero biography' is a good description, you're welcome to describe it in a manner you think *is* a good description. I'm just using shorthand this community seems familiar with.

Elijah

I can’t say how new the idea was but it was as impactful of an act as the world has known.

Paul used OT scripture as evidence of a coming savior and to give validity to Jesus’ claim. “promised beforehand… thru holy scripture” And the not thru man is him not being taught/convinced about Christ from other men but by the spirit of Christ that is in the conviction of his followers. Conviction demonstrated in a willingness to die. That’s why he shows up knowing nothing but “Christ and him crucified.” Kind of like the two eunuchs parable, he was trying to show that he wasn’t made this way by man.
If your example is historic hero biographies then how is that going to be evidence against a historical origin for Jesus? What do you think historical hero biographies proves?
Those are all historical figures right? Does that help your case any? Where is this comparable in genre text to what you think the gospels are portraying? It’s not that I’m too lazy to use Google you just aren’t making a case at all for a mythical Jesus or against historical with what you have provided. Apparently from reading above and below, hero biographies isn’t even the proper term.
Well support a mythical origin to Christ or explain why you are arguing against a historical core because that’s against the grain.
The gospel before it was written down, when it was just a bunch of poor people spreading the good news. How long after his death was Mark written and was it by someone who witnessed it or was orally told about the events?
So you think it was a 90 percent chance he was of higher/noble class? And why do you think that? Why go against the tradition and simple probability?
Because they thought the universal worship of Christ would save the world by taking the power away from earthly rulers. Or that seems to be the idea.

spin

That's black-and-white thinking coupled with assumption of your desired conclusion. It makes it hard for you to reach a reasoned conclusion.

Before you can get to the presumptuous stage your at, you need to answer some questions convincingly.

1. When were the sources you use written?
2. What sources did those writers use?
3. What degree of verification of facts contained in your sources have you reached and how?
4. How do you distinguish those sources as containing historical information, as against such texts as the infancy gospels, the letters between Paul and Seneca, the letter of Abgar, the Acts of Pilate and all the other texts that sprang up with the evolving christian traditions?

There are many more.

I know for example that Julius Caesar was a real person, because I have clear irrefutable evidence for him, including coins, statues and inscriptions. His participation in the downfall of the Roman republic is well and often recorded in literature. Archaeological evidence supports the campaigns that are recorded in his writings. This is a figure you can hold up as a solid core of history. Jesus to me has nothing to support his historicity. This doesn't mean that he didn't exist, but that the onus is squarely upon those who want to claim historicity to demonstrate it.

The christian religion has arrived in the 21st century with a historical hegemony over cultural traditions throughout the "western" world. Explorers knew their bible and when they traveled through eastern lands they read their bible into what they saw. There was no coherent understanding of scholarly necessities in the identifications and assumptions they made. They believed the bible and it fed their interpretation of what they saw in the Levant, Egypt, Anatolia and Mesopotamia. The truth of the bible and the stories contained in it were assumed to be true and that truth infused their understanding of what they saw. So, we arrive in the 21st century with never the necessary step of demonstrating the historicity of the central events in the bible, merely millennia of belief in their reality and lots of misunderstandings about the middle east because they interpreted it through though the warping lens of the bible.

The important questions haven't been asked by many and rarely openly. The background to the bible isn't generally dealt with by historians and anthropologists, but by religious studies scholars, the preponderance of whom have religious commitments and so will not ask or attempt to answer questions that need to be answered, such as why the criteria used for doing history aren't applied in biblical studies. Why does one assume their conclusions with the notion of a historical Jesus rather than asking whether there really was a historical Jesus? Real historians tend to shy away from biblical issues, unless they have religious commitments and then they usually suspend their historical judgments (prime example here being Kenneth Kitchen, well-respected Egyptologist of the Third Intermediate Period, also writes crap supporting Daniel's historicity). Selective blindness is what we expect from religious scholars, as with christians, as with Jews, as with muslims. It's understandable when you believe: you know that it's right and so your scholarship is compromised.

A scientist is forced by the evidence to abandon untenable analyses. A religious scholar has faith.

A culture under the hegemony of a religion has to kowtow to the mores of the religion. That hegemony is cultural and reaches through any pursuit that touches on the religion. Whether you believe or not your are more likely to accept the apologetic disguised as evidence, as it has been the way of the culture for a large number of generations before you.

The scholar's job is to strip away all impediments from analysing the evidence. The scholar cannot be adverse to going over elementary issues, because nothing is sacred enough to interfere with understanding. The only problem then is to overcome those impediments that have become so institutionalized that one is blind to them.

If you think that there is a historical core, when Paul didn't need one (having gained his gospel through direct revelation), on what basis exactly do you think so? I wouldn't be interested in the assumption that things are right until proven wrong, but I would be interested if you'd like to explain the basis for your thinking that there is a historical core. I myself, from my long dealing with the christian literature cannot see that there is such a core, though there might be one. So, I'm asking for the evidence for that perceived core. Got any?


spin

yalla

I just bought Robin lane Fox's "The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible".
A historian, an athiest, with good reviews could/should be interesting.
Its a bit early to tell yet but I'm a little disappointed.
Take this on p.55 for example "If we could revisit David and Solomon , the first kings in Israel.......mid to late tenth century..."
He has presumed their historical existence and does not seem to be aware that such a presumption is not entirely justified, there is no reference to the debate about the existence of these two, maybe it comes later but at this stage it seems to me to be a gap in his understanding and treatment.
There are a few other similar examples from earlier in the book.
Yet the guy has a pretty good reputation I believe, I dunno, maybe I wasted some money.

Elijah

If you have a theory that is in the middle ground let me know.
Don’t know any of that. Does that add any weight to the story being from a myth or just a just a general lack of knowledge of the past?
You are comparing the evidence left by a great emperor of a great empire to that of the son of a carpenter. Does that make even a lick of sense to you? It doesn’t to me.
I ask if there is a historical Jesus and I haven’t seen any good evidence or reason to assume a mythical origin. I’m all for digging into the background of the bible but I haven’t seen any support of the myth theory. And at the end of the day you are only going to be able to retrieve so much reliable information about the past so you’re just going to have to go with the most likely scenario.
I don’t use faith. I use reason.
Just probability based on my experience, I’m not accepting anyone’s apologetics disguised as evidence.
I don’t have any problems looking at evidence with an open mind. What evidence do you think the myther provides to support their position?
Evidence of a historical core is reason, the story makes sense with a historical person sacrificing his life and his followers imitating the act, which is the tradition of what happened. It doesn’t make sense for a myth to be confused for history and then imitated and see no reason to consider the possibility when there is no evidence to support that. Unless you got any?

Paul doesn’t need a historical core or Paul didn’t need to meet him physically? To say that Paul didn’t think that Jesus was historical is far fetched and poorly supported. How do you think Paul understood Christ spiritually? What is the Christ spirit to you?

spin

My theories are irrelevant to the problem you are in.

Without being able to answer any of those question, I can see no way for you to have any reason to believe in a historical core to the gospel traditions.

I am making clear to you what evidence is. In order for you to be able to make a reasoned response.

Scenarios in history are what will prevent you from doing analysis.

I don't necessarily believe that. (And I'm not attributing you with any religious beliefs, just that your statements about history don't seem to be based on evidence.

Forget common sense notions of "probability". They are not based on evidence.

Jesus may not have existed, but confusing that notion with the notion that Jesus was a myth will not help you. They are two separate issues. The job before you is to provide evidence for a historical core to the gospel stories, not to seek excuses for not providing any evidence for your notion of a historical Jesus core.

In short, you haven't got a speck of evidence to dirty the issue.

Shirking your need for historical evidence will not help you.

Paul specifically says that he got his gospel from a revelation and that no human taught it to him (Gal 1:11f). Paul needed no real Jesus, which is not to say that he didn't believe in a real one. The same goes for all his converts. He trusted his revelation. They trusted him. And nobody needed a historical reality behind it all.

You are confusing what I said. (And I don't see what Paul's thought about "Christ spirit" has to do with your efforts to deal with a historical core to the Jesus story.)

From your answers I see no evidence in your possession that would lead a person to think there was a historical core. "Common sense" is no substitute for historical methodology, which is based strictly on evidence.


spin

Elijah

Well you need to prove that black and white, mythical vs. historical is incorrect thinking by providing some in-between scenario. You need to show me why there is more than two doors to choose from.
Because the only other scenario is unlikely to have occurred. Like aliens helping build the pyramids; I can’t prove they didn’t help, but I’m still going with the most rational/likely explanation.
No you are making unreasonable expectations with faulty historical comparisons. Insanely faulty comparison.
Analysis of what? You act like there is some evidence out there that we don’t know of that is going to shed some defining light on this.
Then what is probability based on if not evidence?
If the story didn’t originate from historical origins then it had to come from a mythical/fictional origin unless you have a middle ground theory to push forward, that I have already asked for.


No if you can’t use reason I can’t help you.
It’s you who need some whatever you consider credible historical evidence; I’m fine with the concept of him being historical just using reason. I'll wait until I see some reason to believe otherwise, it's not like there aren't people working on it so if anything comes up I should be able to catch it.
So what is your point then if it isn’t to say Paul didn’t believe in a historical Christ?
If you are arguing against a historical core then you need to be able to argue what core you think it comes from. If you are going to use Paul as an example of a non historical core form of Christ you need to be able to explain in what form he is speaking of Christ.
Use whatever works for you. I have no idea of the conclusions you have come to using your method so I can’t comment on its effectiveness.

spin

Rubbish. All you are saying is that you have no evidence and that you want to play choose the scenario that you fins more attractive. Doh!

See what I mean! It was only obvious that you couldn't look past your nose to see that you were falling all over yourself not to need any evidence whatsoever.

This is as useful as a hip-pocket in a singlet.

When someone tries to show how a process works do you usually ignore it? Evidence is what is necessary to do history, not your conjectures.

I'm acting like there is information that we lack and that we shouldn't fill the gaps with conjecture.

Stating probability and having evidence for that statement are two different things. You've provided nothing for your claim of probability.

I hate the drug-addict approach to analysis. "Give me another drug or I'll stick with the one I've got."

You can't help me, but it's because you've got no evidence to help me with.

As you have no evidence, you have nothing.

Hey, that's it. You've admitted it: "I'll wait until I see some reason to believe otherwise"

Of course Paul didn't believe in a "historical Christ". The term is an anachronism. Paul obviously believed in the necessity of a Jesus. After all he had a revelation from him, didn't he?

I don't have to argue anything. You are the one claiming a historical core. Either do your jobs or get off the pot.

I'm providing Paul as a prime example of no necessity for there being a real Jesus. That doesn't mean that there was or wasn't a real Jesus. Just that the religion didn't need a real Jesus to kickstart. If he didn't need one. Why do you?

You crapped on about a historical core, but never seem to want to actually expose it to the light of observation.

What you've actually done is ignored the fact that you've got no evidence, focused on the problems of the perceived alternative explanation, and, by rejecting it, you've taken on what's left by default. When asked to test what you believe, you fail to provide the goods.

When someone makes a positive claim -- as you have with your claim of there being a historical core to the gospel story --, you put yourself in the position of demonstrating the claim. You just can't do it. You waffle on about reason, which is apparently a synonym for a web of conjecture you've structured in such a way that makes you happy.

Is there a historical core to the Robin Hood stories? What I hope you answer is "I don't know." If that's correct, then why can't you respond the same in the Jesus issue?


spin