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 06-14-2011, 02:11 PM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgoodguy View Post
I personally would expect the JM folks to cry forgery if a signed birth certificate for Yehoshua with a Joseph and Mary as parents or at least point out the names are common in 1st Century Judea. The same for any execution notice of a Yehoshua which would be dismissed as merely a similar common name and just coincidental. A written report by a Roman centurion about a resurrection would be dismissed out of hand for any number of reasons. Multiple reports of walking ghosts in Jerusalem in circa 30 CE would be just mass hysteria or conspiracy. I cannot conceived of any tangible, primary or credible evidence that would be sufficient for a dedicated JM advocate.
mmm, I think that's a bit extreme. I don't see how Jesus mythicists have more to gain than Jesus historicists have to lose in this debate.

But reports of supernatural events would always be suspicious, doesn't matter if it's Jesus or whoever. This has been the problem with the texts we already have: once you remove the miraculous elements there isn't much left.

Let's be honest: Jesus is not just any old person from the 1st C, he's the central figure in our cultural heritage, allegedly a manifestation of divine power. It may still be decades before any sort of objective analysis of his career (if there was one) can be accepted by the mainstream.
bacht is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 02:37 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

I don't accept the criterion of falsifiability, but the historical Jesus is falsifiable, and it can be done if the bullshit promoted by Jesus-mythers all over the Internet turns out to be not bullshit. If we have evidence of a dozen ancient mythical godmen preceding Jesus who were baptized, had twelve disciples, was crucified, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven, then all theories of the historical Jesus would crumble in a heaping ruin.

That is a high bar, however, but it can also be done if the mythicist theory promoted by Earl Doherty really fit the evidence. Suppose that Paul truly did not mention anything about a human Jesus who existed on Earth in any of his writings. Suppose there was an early Christian heresy much like the docetists but they believed that Jesus never even seemed human, but he was only a spiritual being who existed in heaven, and these heretics were condemned and ridiculed by Irenaeus. Suppose we had a pattern of other messianic cults who believe in a merely-spiritual messiah. All such evidence would falsify the position of the historical human Jesus, as far as historical theories can be falsified, anyway.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 02:54 PM   #33
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgoodguy View Post
... I cannot conceived of any tangible, primary or credible evidence that would be sufficient for a dedicated JM advocate.

As a dedicated agnostic, I would reject the reports for the same reasons.
Why? There are a number of people on the fence, who think of themselves as agnostic. A sufficiently credible piece of evidence would tip the balance in favor of historicism. The problem is that all of the evidence produced so far is less than credible, but that could change.
Why? Lets assume the James Ossuary was authenticated as it nearly was.
What would be the JM response? Hold hands with the HJers and sing kumbaya or argue against the evidence. The main argument would be that all the names are common to Judea and it is circumstantial evidence at best and then attacking the dating. In fact here is an argument made at a time when the James Ossuary was considered credible.

So yes, I am rather pessimistic than any credible evidence would be enough.
jgoodguy is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 02:59 PM   #34
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgoodguy View Post
I personally would expect the JM folks to cry forgery if a signed birth certificate for Yehoshua with a Joseph and Mary as parents or at least point out the names are common in 1st Century Judea.
I think you are confusing two different groups of people.

The people who rubbish findings of a Mary , Joseph and Jesus are Christian apologists wedded to the idea that Jesus existed.

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles...s_response.htm

But don't let the real world confuse you.
Are you asserting that in the real world, MJers would readily embrace a report of the finding of a birth certificate?
jgoodguy is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 03:22 PM   #35
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

I believe that the commitment of Jesus-minimalists exists on a spectrum. They are somewhat uniform in their belief that textual evidence is highly doubtful--they normally claim to hold to the criterion of physical evidence. If we had physical evidence that is conclusively connected to the physical Jesus, like, say, the crucified Jesus buried in a labeled tomb, with DNA that matches the DNA of a blood-signed statement at the last supper by Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, then I think a bunch of mythicists would be convinced. But, of course, the most committed Jesus mythers would not be convinced by the most conclusive physical evidence. They have already shown the extremity of their skepticism--many of them deny the existence of the first-century town of Nazareth, and others give that position serious consideration (Earl Doherty and Robert Price accept Rene Salm as belonging among them), despite the archaeological evidence strongly concurring with the textual evidence with respect to first-century Nazareth. Not all Jesus-minimalists go to that extreme, but it shows how far many of them are willing to go.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 03:23 PM   #36
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bacht View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgoodguy View Post
I personally would expect the JM folks to cry forgery if a signed birth certificate for Yehoshua with a Joseph and Mary as parents or at least point out the names are common in 1st Century Judea. The same for any execution notice of a Yehoshua which would be dismissed as merely a similar common name and just coincidental. A written report by a Roman centurion about a resurrection would be dismissed out of hand for any number of reasons. Multiple reports of walking ghosts in Jerusalem in circa 30 CE would be just mass hysteria or conspiracy. I cannot conceived of any tangible, primary or credible evidence that would be sufficient for a dedicated JM advocate.
mmm, I think that's a bit extreme. I don't see how Jesus mythicists have more to gain than Jesus historicists have to lose in this debate.

But reports of supernatural events would always be suspicious, doesn't matter if it's Jesus or whoever. This has been the problem with the texts we already have: once you remove the miraculous elements there isn't much left.

Let's be honest: Jesus is not just any old person from the 1st C, he's the central figure in our cultural heritage, allegedly a manifestation of divine power. It may still be decades before any sort of objective analysis of his career (if there was one) can be accepted by the mainstream.
Let me be honest, I would be skeptical of such reports. The dating of 1 first century document would have a range greater than 30 years using C14 testing-a range greater than the alleged lift time of the HJ.
Quote:
In 2008, a typical uncertainty better than ±40 radiocarbon years can be expected for samples younger than 10,000 years. Wiki
Thus a birth certificate with the appropriate Roman stamps would be questionable.
jgoodguy is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 03:26 PM   #37
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Anyway, the challenge remains open. Tell me what established facts reinforce the belief that Jesus is more like the Angel Moroni than Joseph Smith.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 04:45 PM   #38
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgoodguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

Why? There are a number of people on the fence, who think of themselves as agnostic. A sufficiently credible piece of evidence would tip the balance in favor of historicism. The problem is that all of the evidence produced so far is less than credible, but that could change.
Why? Lets assume the James Ossuary was authenticated as it nearly was.
What would be the JM response? Hold hands with the HJers and sing kumbaya or argue against the evidence. The main argument would be that all the names are common to Judea and it is circumstantial evidence at best and then attacking the dating. In fact here is an argument made at a time when the James Ossuary was considered credible.
....
That is from Acharya S's site, and she is committed to mythicism moreso than most.

But even if that evidence were not a forgery, the connection to Jesus was still problematic.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 04:52 PM   #39
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Anyway, the challenge remains open. Tell me what established facts reinforce the belief that Jesus is more like the Angel Moroni than Joseph Smith.
No one except fundamentalist literalists thinks that Jesus established the church that claims to follow his teachings. Most scholars seem to think that Jesus intended to reform Judaism and/or announce the apocalypse.

Joseph Smith died and was not resurrected. The Angel Moroni, from the wiki entry, was originally a warrior who died, and then visited Joseph Smith as an angel, much as [Jesus] visited Paul.
Toto is offline  
Old 06-14-2011, 05:15 PM   #40
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bacht View Post
...Let's be honest: Jesus is not just any old person from the 1st C, he's the central figure in our cultural heritage, allegedly a manifestation of divine power. It may still be decades before any sort of objective analysis of his career (if there was one) can be accepted by the mainstream.
Jesus Christ in the NT was NOT just divine, not just some kind of angelic being like the angel Gabriel, but Jesus Christ based on "Paul" was the MOST SIGNIFICANT character in the ENTIRE Roman Empire.

1. Jesus Christ was the End of the Law of the Jews. Romans 10.4

2. Jesus Christ died for the Sins of all Jews and people of the Roman Empire. 1 Cor.15.3

3. Jesus Christ had a name ABOVE the Deified Emperors of Rome.Php 2.9

4. Jesus Christ was LORD. Php 2.11

5. Every one in the Roman Empire, including the Deified Emperors, should BOW before the name of Jesus. Php 2.10

It is clear that Jesus Christ of the NT Surpassed the insignificant Joseph Smith both theologically, politically and in divinity by a "million miles".

Jesus of the NT was SIMULTANEOUSLY equivalent to a Jewish Messiah, the Emperor of Rome and the GOD of the Jews based on the Pauline writings.

We can find Joseph Smith who was extremely insignificant yet the Pauline Jesus cannot be located anywhere. Not even those who wrote stories about Jesus Christ ever even claim they were DELIGHTED to have met Jesus Christ of the NT.

"Paul" BOASTED that he SAW Jesus AFTER he was dead.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Top

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