Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yes, great if NT scholars think that a historical figure was relevant to the gospel JC story. I think so myself. However, a crucified nobody carpenter preacher guy is an impossibility to find historical evidence for - hence the idea is a dead-end. Which, of course, is where all the searching for such a figure presently lies. Historicists need to make the jump from a nobody carpenter preacher to historical figures; figures whose historicity is established. Which means they need to put the gospel JC figure aside and look to history for historical figures that could have inspired that gospel JC story to be written.

So you do think there was a historical Jesus, you just don't want to call him that.

Wrong. I don't think there was a historical Jesus. I think historical figures were relevant to the creation, the literary creation, of the gospel JC figure. I think the gospel JC is a composite literary creation.

Quote:

Every person who has ever lived has lived historically, by the way. A "nobody carpenter" is no less historical for being a nobody.

Better watch out for spin......

Quote:

You are making a mistake in trying to tether a the hypothetical object of a historically documented personality cult foundational to the Christian religion to the mythologized character of the New Testament.

We don't need any reference to the NT at all. we don't have to define Jesus as anything more than how he is described by Tacitus.

It's also clearly not "impossible to find evidence for." There is a great deal of independent attestation for a historically crucified Galilean preacher at the heart of Christian origins.

Scotsguy44 · 04-04-2012, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

I'm of the view (correct me if I'm mistaken) that the historical method by application of methodological naturalism shaves off any supernatural elements in the subject matter. If that is correct then there is no historical inquiry into the Jesus Christ of the NT because that is equal to an inquiry into that which has already been shaved off - the supernatural elements. That then reduces itself to historical inquiry as to whether or not the character(s) referred to in the NT are more probably than not historical or more probably than not mythical. As I understand the HJ/MH debate that is the issue and not whether everything claimed for Jesus happened or did not happen. The beliefs of Christianity have no relevance in that debate.

Matt

It's not christian beliefs that are relevant here. It's the gospel JC story, in and off itself. It is pure assumption to maintain that by taking away all the mythological elements that a normal flesh and blood Jesus lies underneath.

Yes, great if NT scholars think that a historical figure was relevant to the gospel JC story. I think so myself. However, a crucified nobody carpenter preacher guy is an impossibility to find historical evidence for - hence the idea is a dead-end. Which, of course, is where all the searching for such a figure presently lies. Historicists need to make the jump from a nobody carpenter preacher to historical figures; figures whose historicity is established. Which means they need to put the gospel JC figure aside and look to history for historical figures that could have inspired that gospel JC story to be written.

1. What is the distinction between my statement, 'The beliefs of Christianity have no relevance in that debate' and your statement, 'It's not christian beliefs that are relevant here'?

None that I can see....

Quote:

2. I made no reference to 'mythological elements', but to supernatural elements and the methodology I outlined is applied to every piece of ancient literature by historians.

So?

Quote:

3. Why is it impossible to find historical evidence for the man Jesus, indeed why is the NT and other extra-biblical sources that refer to that man not historical prima facie evidence for the man Jesus and that on the basis that 'there simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the
mere existence of a man named Jesus'. (http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/indconf.html)

Matt

How long has this search for the crucified nobody carpenter been going on? And what are the results? Zero.

If people want to believe that the gospel JC, of whatever variety, was a real flesh and blood figure - so be it. If they want to claim historicity for that figure they have to produce evidence. There is none.

1. Your post gave the impression that I was saying that Cbristianity was relevant to the debate. We agree it is not.
2. So where we have a methodology applied consistently across all of ancient literature we have to consider the results of that methodology and it produces a prima facie case for existence of characters mentioned in that literature.
3. The results are that the existence of Jesus the man is historically accepted by the vast majority of individuals who have examined the subject, whether in the world of the academia or laypersons. That doesn't make that historicity true but it does give good grounds for provisional acceptance barring stronger counter-evidence.

Matt

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-04-2012, 09:07 AM

The evidence for the bare claim of a crucified preacher named Jesus being at the root of the earliest Christian movement is quite ample, actually. Paul is not nothing. Tacitus and Josephus are not nothing. Mark, John, Q, M, L, Thomas, and 1 Clement in addition to Paul are all independent, 1st century attestations to the existence of such a figure.

There were many other forms of Christianity in the first two centuries, and none of them assumed anything but a historical Jesus. They disagreed on who he was, or what he was made of, but they thought he walked around on earth.

That is ton of evidence already for a real historical founder, and it's also supported by a number of other factors, such as multiple criteria of dissimilarity, multiple independent attestation for Jesus having family members and named earthly associates and a commonly attested sayings tradition.

You can say you don't find this evidence convincing, but it's certainly evidence.

Rick Sumner · 04-04-2012, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't think I have enough information to make that judgement.

A pity such prudence only comes after your snide dismissal.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The evidence for the bare claim of a crucified preacher named Jesus being at the root of the earliest Christian movement is quite ample, actually. Paul is not nothing. Tacitus and Josephus are not nothing. Mark, John, Q, M, L, Thomas, and 1 Clement in addition to Paul are all independent, 1st century attestations to the existence of such a figure.

There were many other forms of Christianity in the first two centuries, and none of them assumed anything but a historical Jesus. They disagreed on who he was, or what he was made of, but they thought he walked around on earth.

That is ton of evidence already for a real historical founder, and it's also supported by a number of other factors, such as multiple criteria of dissimilarity, multiple independent attestation for Jesus having family members and named earthly associates and a commonly attested sayings tradition.

You can say you don't find this evidence convincing, but it's certainly evidence.

The bare belief of christianity is about a crucified figure. For that claim to have had any validity, to have had any legs to travel, it had to be based upon reality and not upon an imaginary crucifixion in a heavenly realm. So, now the question becomes, who was that figure? The JC historicists claim it was the gospel JC - in whatever variation they find useful. I've been making the claim that the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, was relevant for the creation of the gospel JC crucifixion story. The dishonorable death, at the hands of Rome, of a King and High Priest of the Jews - verse a crucifixion of a nobody carpenter preacher - which has the more social and political signification - hence real consequences for the Jews?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-04-2012, 09:28 AM

Who that figure was is irrelevant to whether such a figure existed. Those are different questions.

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

I'm of the view (correct me if I'm mistaken) that the historical method by application of methodological naturalism shaves off any supernatural elements in the subject matter. If that is correct then there is no historical inquiry into the Jesus Christ of the NT because that is equal to an inquiry into that which has already been shaved off - the supernatural elements. That then reduces itself to historical inquiry as to whether or not the character(s) referred to in the NT are more probably than not historical or more probably than not mythical. As I understand the HJ/MH debate that is the issue and not whether everything claimed for Jesus happened or did not happen. The beliefs of Christianity have no relevance in that debate.

Matt

It's not christian beliefs that are relevant here. It's the gospel JC story, in and off itself. It is pure assumption to maintain that by taking away all the mythological elements that a normal flesh and blood Jesus lies underneath.

Yes, great if NT scholars think that a historical figure was relevant to the gospel JC story. I think so myself. However, a crucified nobody carpenter preacher guy is an impossibility to find historical evidence for - hence the idea is a dead-end. Which, of course, is where all the searching for such a figure presently lies. Historicists need to make the jump from a nobody carpenter preacher to historical figures; figures whose historicity is established. Which means they need to put the gospel JC figure aside and look to history for historical figures that could have inspired that gospel JC story to be written.

1. What is the distinction between my statement, 'The beliefs of Christianity have no relevance in that debate' and your statement, 'It's not christian beliefs that are relevant here'?

None that I can see....

Quote:

2. I made no reference to 'mythological elements', but to supernatural elements and the methodology I outlined is applied to every piece of ancient literature by historians.

So?

Quote:

3. Why is it impossible to find historical evidence for the man Jesus, indeed why is the NT and other extra-biblical sources that refer to that man not historical prima facie evidence for the man Jesus and that on the basis that 'there simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the
mere existence of a man named Jesus'. (http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/indconf.html)

Matt

How long has this search for the crucified nobody carpenter been going on? And what are the results? Zero.

If people want to believe that the gospel JC, of whatever variety, was a real flesh and blood figure - so be it. If they want to claim historicity for that figure they have to produce evidence. There is none.

1. Your post gave the impression that I was saying that Cbristianity was relevant to the debate. We agree it is not.
2. So where we have a methodology applied consistently across all of ancient literature we have to consider the results of that methodology and it produces a prima facie case for existence of characters mentioned in that literature.
3. The results are that the existence of Jesus the man is historically accepted by the vast majority of individuals who have examined the subject, whether in the world of the academia or laypersons. That doesn't make that historicity true but it does give good grounds for provisional acceptance barring stronger counter-evidence.

Matt

Yes, it's easy to read the 'evidence' as upholding historicity for the gospel JC. The JC gospel story is it's own support system. It has a built-in safety net. Contradictions upon contradictions - which enable multiple interpretations of that story. The story can't be falsified by appeals to any one interpretation of it. That's why that story has to be set down alongside the history of the specific time period covered by that story.

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Who that figure was is irrelevant to whether such a figure existed. Those are different questions.

Now you've lost me.....:constern01:

Scotsguy44 · 04-04-2012, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

1. Your post gave the impression that I was saying that Cbristianity was relevant to the debate. We agree it is not.
2. So where we have a methodology applied consistently across all of ancient literature we have to consider the results of that methodology and it produces a prima facie case for existence of characters mentioned in that literature.
3. The results are that the existence of Jesus the man is historically accepted by the vast majority of individuals who have examined the subject, whether in the world of the academia or laypersons. That doesn't make that historicity true but it does give good grounds for provisional acceptance barring stronger counter-evidence.

Matt

Yes, it's easy to read the 'evidence' as upholding historicity for the gospel JC. The JC gospel story is it's own support system. It has a built-in safety net. Contradictions upon contradictions - which enable multiple interpretations of that story. The story can't be falsified by appeals to any one interpretation of it. That's why that story has to be set down alongside the history of the specific time period covered by that story.

We seem to be talking past each other

I don't view historical inquiry to be concerned with Jesus Christ (JC) and the gospel accounts because those by definition include the supernatural which the historical method shaves off. Rather I view the historical inquiry to be as to whether the man Jesus, who is the subject of the NT and other sources, existed. That is a question of a very ordinary nature and to which I believe the answer is yes, he existed.

Matt

maryhelena · 04-04-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotsguy44

1. Your post gave the impression that I was saying that Cbristianity was relevant to the debate. We agree it is not.
2. So where we have a methodology applied consistently across all of ancient literature we have to consider the results of that methodology and it produces a prima facie case for existence of characters mentioned in that literature.
3. The results are that the existence of Jesus the man is historically accepted by the vast majority of individuals who have examined the subject, whether in the world of the academia or laypersons. That doesn't make that historicity true but it does give good grounds for provisional acceptance barring stronger counter-evidence.

Matt

Yes, it's easy to read the 'evidence' as upholding historicity for the gospel JC. The JC gospel story is it's own support system. It has a built-in safety net. Contradictions upon contradictions - which enable multiple interpretations of that story. The story can't be falsified by appeals to any one interpretation of it. That's why that story has to be set down alongside the history of the specific time period covered by that story.

We seem to be talking past each other

I don't view historical inquiry to be concerned with Jesus Christ (JC) and the gospel accounts because those by definition include the supernatural which the historical method shaves off. Rather I view the historical inquiry to be as to whether the man Jesus, who is the subject of the NT and other sources, existed. That is a question of a very ordinary nature and to which I believe the answer is yes, he existed.

Matt

No, it's not a question of a very ordinary nature. It's a case of cherry-picking the gospel JC story.

View Poll Results: Check off everything you would need to see to say a guy was a "Historical Jesus."
God	1	2.63%
Resurrection	3	7.89%
Healed miraculously and drove out real demons	3	7.89%
Was a conventional (non-supernatural) faith healer and exorcist, but did not do miracles	13	34.21%
Performed nature miracles such as walking on water	3	7.89%
Was born of a virgin	2	5.26%
Said all or most of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	4	10.53%
Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	21	55.26%
Believed himself to be God	2	5.26%
Believed himself to be the Messiah	5	13.16%
Was believed by his followers to be God	1	2.63%
Was believed by his followers to be the Messiah	16	42.11%
Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple	9	23.68%
Was crucified	27	71.05%
Was from Nazareth	8	21.05%
Was from Galilee	12	31.58%
Had 12 disciples	3	7.89%
Had some disciples, not necessarily 12	25	65.79%
Raised the dead	2	5.26%
Was believed by his disciples to still be alive somehow after the crucifixion.	17	44.74%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

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

04-04-2012, 09:07 AM	#233
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	The evidence for the bare claim of a crucified preacher named Jesus being at the root of the earliest Christian movement is quite ample, actually. Paul is not nothing. Tacitus and Josephus are not nothing. Mark, John, Q, M, L, Thomas, and 1 Clement in addition to Paul are all independent, 1st century attestations to the existence of such a figure. There were many other forms of Christianity in the first two centuries, and none of them assumed anything but a historical Jesus. They disagreed on who he was, or what he was made of, but they thought he walked around on earth. That is ton of evidence already for a real historical founder, and it's also supported by a number of other factors, such as multiple criteria of dissimilarity, multiple independent attestation for Jesus having family members and named earthly associates and a commonly attested sayings tradition. You can say you don't find this evidence convincing, but it's certainly evidence.

04-04-2012, 09:28 AM	#236
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Who that figure was is irrelevant to whether such a figure existed. Those are different questions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.