Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MCalavera · 08-29-2011, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Yes, we agree. But they didn't ever MEET Jesus, as Paul makes clear.

Paul has only made it clear that he himself has never met Jesus until way after the Resurrection. He said nothing about the other Apostles not knowing the historical Jesus.

Solo · 08-29-2011, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

We have no problem appreciating the mythic character of other gods, even while we can appreciate the issues or truths they represent. What's so different about Jesus?

I have been struggling with this for a while, so maybe you can help here: I do not know any other mythical figure than JC on whom there would wave been such elemental disagreement as Paul describes in Galatians. Where in the world of myths would I find a parallel to a situation where one group believes their mythical hero died as a result of being put to death by a bunch of hoodlums (as eg. Acts 2:23) and another group, which wants to consider nothing but cosmic emanations of him in his afterlife, believes his death was legally correct but a part of God's plan to save his faithful ? Do you know anything that would at least remotely parallel this ?

Best,
Jiri

MCalavera · 08-29-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...Galatians 1:1 has a context. Jesus wasn't simply just a man according to Paul. That we can agree on.

Well, that is EXACTLY what I told you Jesus was a resurrected MYTH God/man. He was NOT simply a man he was GOD in the FLESH of a man and was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day---A resurrected MYTH.

The Pauline Jesus could have ONLY been BELIEVED to have existed as a GOD/MAN.

Now, I hope you STOP arguing that the Pauline Jesus was simply a man.

I repeat, you CANNOT use the Pauline writings to argue that Jesus was a man you will destroy your argument as you just did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

... Jesus wasn't simply just a man according to Paul...

Jesus was a resurrected God INCARNATE in the Pauline writings.

When did I argue that the Paul and the other Apostles believed Jesus to just simply be a man?

Strawman arguments much?

MCalavera · 08-29-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

To be honest, it's not really worth putting much effort into showing how wrong the other side is. It's like debating the facts of evolution with creationists.

So there we have it -
JMicists are just like creationists, so it's a waste of time for the superior MCalavera to stoop to our level and bother with facts and arguments - he already knows he is right and we are all wrong. Looks like he learned at the feet of McGrath ;-)

Bye then MCalavera.

K.

You're not arguing against me only, you know. You're arguing against many serious scholars whose position I happen to support pertaining to this subject.

I'm not that special.

MCalavera · 08-29-2011, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...

Um, no, the evidence for Jesus being historical is strong and stronger than what you and Doherty and others wish.

I don't wish anything. I'm just looking at what is there - unreliable ancient manuscripts. What do you consider evidence?

I don't. The purported letters of Paul are only evidence of what the second and third century church promulgated as texts.

The Book of Acts is a second century piece of church propaganda. It has no historical value for figuring out Paul or Jesus. But even this selection from Galatians, if it was actually written by Paul or someone like him, does not mention a historical Jesus or anyone who witnessed him on earth. Apostles can be apostles of a god or a spiritual Jesus. Paul persecuted the Church of God but he doesn't indicate what they believed or whether any of them knew Jesus.

So far, you've got nothing.

Of course it fits in well - there was a common editor who imposed a Christian orthodoxy on the entire NT. Robert M. Price considers this passage an interpolation, since Paul otherwise indicates that he got his gospel from no man, and for Paul to call himself the least of the apostles is highly unlike Paul. (His full treatment is here.) Even if not, this is a recitation of a creed, not historical evidence, and we know that these early Christians knew nothing about a historical Jesus. They searched for him in the Hebrew Scriptures, and supplied the necessary details about his life from Isaiah and other passages.

Quote:

The above is just a small tidbit of evidence that support the historicity of Jesus. I can post more evidence later if anyone's interested.

I suspect that we've seen it all before. What's next - Tacitus and Josephus? Thallus? Do you have any archaeological evidence? Official Roman documents from the first century? Anything else that would actually qualify as evidence? I don't think so.

This is not "strong" evidence.

I'm not saying that it is totally irrational to think that there is some reflection of a historical Jesus in what we have. It is entirely possible that there was some dude named Jesus who got himself crucified, and whose friends started a new religion. But the evidence of this is thin, and there are more persuasive ways of interpreted the scanty evidence that we have.

You seem to have different views from what Earl and his followers espouse, so we can discuss your views some other day.

No, for me, the only good evidence in this debate for the historicity of Jesus Christ (or at least as believed by the Apostles) is the New Testament canon itself, specifically the Epistles.

Unlike Earl, however, you do not rely on the Epistles to argue your points.

As for Robert Price, I personally wouldn't trust him all the way. This is the same guy who praised Acharya S for her works, didn't he?

Why was it unlikely for Paul to say something low about himself?

MCalavera · 08-29-2011, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

The above is just a small tidbit of evidence that support the historicity of Jesus. I can post more evidence later if anyone's interested.

Interested?
There could hardly be an audience that is MORE interested in evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus!

This forum is one with the most interest in that subject, Earl himself even posts here. This thread is largely about that very subject, and there are many others here in which we deal with this fascinating subject.

We would LOVE to hear some 'evidence'.

But it seems like you actually believe that YOU have 'evidence' we have never seen before!

In fact, the alleged 'evidence' has been discussed for years here, but you, a newcomer, and someone who hadn't even read Doherty, seem to believe that YOU have slam-dunk evidence we have never seen.

What a laugh.

We all know what the alleged 'evidence' will be :
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Thallus and Phlegon, Mara bar Serapion, the Talmuds etc. etc.

NONE of which stands up to scrutiny as solid evidence for a historical Jesus.

K.

I didn't say I have evidence that no one has ever seen. All the evidence I know of you know of. It's not about what new evidence I can bring to the table. It's about how I wish to present the evidence itself in a way that I can make you realize that the burden is on you to provide alternative evidence that conclusively destroys the evidence we have.

And I mentioned nothing about Tacitus, Josephus, and the others you mentioned.

You seem to be the king of strawman arguments. Guess who's laughing now.

MCalavera · 08-29-2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you hadn't just arrived two minutes ago and started talking like you thought you knew something we didn't, you might have spent some time to read about what people here actual did know. We have picked through all the literary remains and discussed them to death.

So, tell me, what's your definition of the word "flesh" and "man" and "buried" and "born"?

Quote:

Your baldfaced claims that the evidence for Jesus being historical is strong and stronger than what you and Doherty and others wish just tell us that you are uncritical about cristian preserved sources.

It is definitely stronger than any combination of evidence supporting what mythicists advocate.

If you have references for where Jesus was crucified exactly according to the beliefs of the Apostles, do let us know.

Quote:

Because he was writing well before any Jesus tradition found in the gospels.

How do you know that?

Quote:

Can you tell me when the book of Acts was actually dated and on what reliable grounds? Of course you cannot. You have to trust the neutrality of mainly christian analysts.

You think only Christian analysts have a say about when the Book of Acts was dated?

Quote:

What you read in Paul's comments from Galatians are merely the interpretations of christian scholars analyzing them with post hoc knowledge that stops them from reading what Paul actually says.

Actually, what I read were his own words.

Quote:

Paul is at the beginning of the christian literary tradition and the language that he uses doesn't reflect christian interpretations, but the language use of his time: there was no literary christian use of language in his time to be steeped in, only diaspora Jewish used Greek. When he talks about assemblies (translated as "churches"), people automatically read "christian organizations", but there is no habit established in Paul's time. When he uses "christ" it need only imply "messiah" in Paul's literary context, just as Apollos talked about the "messiah" without knowing anything about Jesus. Reading Paul's language from a christian perspective on usage is anachronistic.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

People just love to quote this, but they never quote what follows. They can't see the relevance of the later text which is so irrelevant, given the list of sightings. Why would Paul have to argue if Jesus was resurrected, if there had been so many sightings of the risen christ? Think about it: what is the necessity of the logic of 1 Cor 15:12-19 if vv.4-11 rendered them useless?

Not every Christian in those days claimed to be witnesses of the Resurrection.

Why questions aren't good evidence for your arguments, by the way.

Quote:

Paul's letters are extremely problematical. For example, Romans 16 which has a doxology at the end is found in one early manuscript with the doxology before it, suggesting that the chapter was added after the doxology was written then the doxology was later placed at the end. 2 Corinthians is thought by many christian scholars to be a combination of a number of different Pauline letters, as is Philippians. How they know that they were all Pauline of course is a conundrum that only faith resolves.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Gal 2:7-8 contains two mentions of Peter, though Paul generally mentions a "Cephas" (in 1 Cor and the rest of Gal), and it talks of Peter with a mission to the circumcised, contradicting the following verse which says that it was James, Cephas and John who were to go to the circumcised. Either Peter had the responsibility or James, Cephas and John did. Who does the Peter reference benefit? Obviously the church relying on apostolic succession that looked to Peter as the figure of the unified church.

An interesting textual phenomenon can be observed in 1 Cor where Cephas is mentioned several times there are no variations in favor of Peter, but in Gal where Peter is mentioned there is manuscript drift from Cephas to Peter. The reference to Peter is a later addition which has caused some scribes to brain fart and write "Peter" where the text had "Cephas". We are looking at a late 2nd c. interpolation with Gal 2:7-8, when Peter is established. (And there is no strong reason to think that one name implied the other for in the Epistle of the Apostles, both Peter and Cephas are listed as apostles.)

The evidence for problems even in the Pauline text is abundant (though most text scholars have been trained with the notion that if it's not evinced in the manuscript tradition, don't consider it), but this is the sort of evidence we have to deal with. The gospels are later and worse historically speaking, as we don't know who specifically wrote them, where they were written or even when they were written. Attempting to do historical research with this material is like walking on a minefield: you don't know if any step you take will blow up on you.

You sound like a scholar. Do you have peer-reviewed papers I can read from you?

Quote:

This is you just talking plain rubbish. Not even you believe that these sightings represent real events, do you? These people seeing the risen Jesus??? If you believe that these are in fact real, then you are in the wrong place.

They believe they saw the risen Jesus. Nothing supernatural. It's just what they believe they saw.

Quote:

Paul bases nothing on history. This is just your misapplication of language. Paul believes things to be real.

Exactly. He believed Jesus to have really been born of a man/woman, to have really died, to have really been buried, and so on.

Quote:

Again this misuse of "historical". The adjective in scholarly circles deals with sufficient evidence to make such a call. You can at best be assuming your conclusions.

We're not arguing for whether or not Jesus was indeed historical. We're discussing what the Apostles believed. There's a distinction.

Quote:

You honestly believe that Paul is going to belittle himself to his Corinthians? Before you say, "sure, why not?", consider that his letters are his means of keeping control of his flocks, keeping them in checking, maintaining his hold. This is the guy who apparently was taken up to the third heaven, he's that sure of his sales pitch.

You need to read up more on human psychology, my friend.

Humans are not as predictable as you may believe.

Quote:

There is nothing here. And rehearsing the shallow presentations of classical authors won't improve anything. You need sources that were not under the control of christian scribes: you cannot trust references to Jesus preserved in christian maintained literature. These are not independent sources.

They are sources of what the Apostles believed. That's the key.

What sources do you have to support your views?

Quote:

If you had any evidence we haven't already analyzed to death, we'd be happy if you'd post it, but don't be surprised if we laugh at the same old rehearsals of christian apologetics.

Laugh all you want till the day you die. You're not that cool anyway.

MCalavera · 08-29-2011, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Exactly.

I personally couldn't care less if Jesus really was a mythical character and nothing more. I just want strong solid arguments from these mythicists that destroy the strong wall of evidence supporting the position that Jesus was a real historical figure.

Personally, I would not even go close to saying that there was a strong wall of evidence. Ultimately, the evidence is not good at all, though it might be noted that it is very good relative to many other minor figures from ancient history, minor at the time I mean, but this does not promote it to 'good evidence' and the warnings about Christian hegemony are to be taken very seriously indeed, since we see almost all the evidence through such a filter.

My view is that the HJ explanation is superior to the MJ explanation and its variants (such as the 'composite original' explanation, though there has to be some truth in this, as I see it, because of almost certain elaboration, whether from a mythical figure or an historical one).

MJ is not therefore, in my opinion, a ridiculous proposition, and could be correct. As with several other conspiracy theories. And it must be admitted that this conspiracy theory is not as daft as some others.

One of the problems is that MJ theories are so comparatively lacking, and I think it is no coincidence that (a) they mainly thrive on the internet and (b) quite a few of the proponents have devoted years to the issue and often don't post in other threads, though I fully admit this has nothing to do with the veracity or otherwize of their claims. My opinion is that it's a pity 'atheist/rational' sites are the home of so much debate on an issue which is not a good reflection on the application of rational skepticism.

Incidentally, on the subject of 'repertoire', Spin has just given a nice demonstration of another tool in the myther kit (not saying he himself is a myther, but he leans well away from HJ, while claiming to be neutral, a nice trick).

The tool is called 'obtuse or unnecessary complication of interpretation'

There is no problem with 1 Cor 15:12-19 unless one wants to see it.

Spin is hinting (I believe) at another, somewhat overplayed 'tool', the unevidenced interpolation. Basically, you cite these whenever the text fits your myther theory better with something removed, usually a verse which seems to hint at an historic Jesus (coincidentally) as in the case of the one you quoted.

Interpolations are of course a hot topic, since there have arguably been rather a lot of them. But mythers seem to take this as a license to bowdlerize at will. There is an academic method for identifying them (and several Christian scholars use it liberally, though I myself am a layman and not an expert) which, as far as I can see, mythers seem to think is redundant. Virtually all that is needed is a personal view that there was some kind of cover-up strategy on the part of various writers to counter the assertion that Jesus didn't exist, and one interesting aspect to this is that there is not, as far as I am aware, one shred of credible evidence that there ever was such an assertion back then. But then, mythers are not really worried about lack of evidence, generally speaking.

Did I previously mention the 'ad hom' tool? If I did, apologies for repeating myself. If I didn't, you will likely encounter it quite a bit if you stay in the discussion. I'm not saying I don't sometimes use them myself, but I try to qualify my comments when I do. :]

Btw, in case you hadn't realised already, the topic is impossible to resolve. I only said that to give you a chance to get out early.

Thanks for sharing with me your point of view. I agree with you that we could easily be wrong concerning the historicity of Jesus, but that is what the current evidence tells us, regardless of how weak you consider it to be.

To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed that this forum seems to be dominated by views known not to be rational. This forum was different a few years back (if I remember correctly, it was under a different domain name). It seems there were a lot more rational atheists/skeptics here than there are now.

Oh, you're right. Impossible to resolve. But that is fine with me.

Toto · 08-29-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...
No, for me, the only good evidence in this debate for the historicity of Jesus Christ (or at least as believed by the Apostles) is the New Testament canon itself, specifically the Epistles.

Your "evidence" is non-existent. You don't know who Paul was, or who wrote those letters. You do know that the proto-orthodox church worked them over.

Quote:

...

As for Robert Price, I personally wouldn't trust him all the way. This is the same guy who praised Acharya S for her works, didn't he?

He says he likes her ideas. He won't say much more than that.

But you can't trust anyone in this field. You have to actually look at the evidence.

Quote:

Why was it unlikely for Paul to say something low about himself?

Because "Paul" displays a lot of self-confidence in the rest of the epistles. He puts down Peter/Cephas and James. He knows that God called him from the womb.

So what is more likely - that he had a sudden attack of humility, or that the same editors who put together the Book of Acts added this to keep "Paul" in his place?

Toto · 08-29-2011, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...

Thanks for sharing with me your point of view. I agree with you that we could easily be wrong concerning the historicity of Jesus, but that is what the current evidence tells us, regardless of how weak you consider it to be.

To be honest, I'm a bit disappointed that this forum seems to be dominated by views known not to be rational. This forum was different a few years back (if I remember correctly, it was under a different domain name). It seems there were a lot more rational atheists/skeptics here than there are now.
...

The forum is open to anyone who abides by the rules, including you, and including Christians and other non-rational types.

Which views do you think are "known not to be rational" and who knows this?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.