Vorkosigan

Layman, as usual, is leaving out the key point of Toto's post. I have emphasized it:

Saying that there is a consensus implies that experts have looked at the evidence and reached a considered opinion based on scholarly standards.

No scholarly standards underlie the conventional view that Jesus walked the earth and that the gospels bear some relationship to his life. It is simply an axiom based on the Nicene creed and historical inertia. We are three years into debate here, and the methodological lack remains unfilled. Crossan's observation that no reliable agreed-upon methodology exists remains as true as ever.

I wonder what kind of idiot pronounces on history he has never studied...

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Plebe
{Material from Plebe clipped to save bandwidth

just a bunch of myther bull shit. Most historians dont' see it as a forgery.

the idea that Paul invented chrisitanity in no way means that he made up Jesus! that is not what historians mean when they talk about that!

more material clipped to save bandwidth

you are the one whose thinking is mixed up. I can show you Jewish scholars who will say say that Paul was an excellent Rabbi. Alfred Edersheim was trained to be a rabbi, he commends Paul. Rabbinical legal thinking is not like modern 20th century American Jurisprudence. The thinking of a First century Rabbi would seem very different than that of a modern lawyer.

Metacrock

Meta: O yea they sure do! I don't think you have the engagment with the hisotirian's corpus to know that. You are assuming it becasue it offends your prejudice. There are some historians whose command of the material is mind boggeling and none of those bleieve Jospehus is a total forgery or that Jesus didn't exist! You have no right to make that stament. Because you don't know because you have not command of the facts!




Meta: O I think I know.

Metacrock

i'm so sick of this same stupid issue! No one ever makes any headway because the myther types dont' care about facts to begin with. Toto and co couldn't care less if the historical consesnsus supports them because they couldn't care less about facts! All they know is Jesus is a proble for them, if they get rid of him they get rid of Christianity. The prospect is so appealing to them that they can't stand the idea that Jesus's existence is a historical fact and only a very ignroant person would turely doubt it after all the evience that his amassed. No other histoircal figure has the kind of in depth documentaiton from that era! except Cesar and we probably know more about Jesus if we take the Gospels seriously than we know about Ceasr!


The point is, there is no good reason for doubting that Jesus was a historical figure. All the reasons for it are based upon shoddy silly evidence and circular reasoning that is shot down over and over and over again. By the time some of a debate clears, the myther forgets what was at the begining and goes on with the same opinons, a fool convenced against his will!


All the mytholgocial synractism that Doherty and co. can bring to bear is disprove over and over and over again. I've showen time and time again that: The basic material for assuming that Gospels barrow from pagan sources is just not there! When one consults real mythology books written by real mythogrophers without an ax to grind against any particular religion, we see that none of the so called "dying rising savior gods" fill the bill!


*Osiris was not the star of his own cult by the time of Christ.

*Kumont showed that the barrowing went the other way from Christinatiy to Mithrism.

*The pagan Ceasar Juian the apostate commanded that Pagan cults being to copy Christianity

*All the pagan sources that show any kind of syncratism to Christianity come after the time of Paul and certianly after the Gospels.


* early date for Gospel composition is established by liberal scholar Helmut Koster and by Crosson as well--set at AD 50, which is certainly not long afte the evens.

* the previlence of the Gospel accounts means that we have to take seriously the basic storyline.

* the fact that no other versions of the story every appear before the 4th century even the gnostic veriations assume the original story of crucification and resurrection

* We have writtings from those who knew eye witnesses to Jesus' ministry!


* Over a dozen historians from the first two centuries speak of him as a factually existing character

* no enemy of Christianity every argued that he didn't exist.



* Mishna sources form first century certainly assume he was a real flesh and blood person.


the evidence is overwhealming. Why can't these guys just assert that we don't know much about him? that's a much more defensable argument. Why is it so improtant to them to defend this junck?

Spirit Branded

Personally I don't believe any historical figure existed ... history is bunk

Blessings and Peace

Spirit Branded

spin

You get a degree from the corn flakes packet?

Gosh, he sounds like a good enough authority. Don't waste your time and talent.

Well, Julius Caesar, I can show you what he looks like and ummm, Set I, I can even give you his body. And the Battle of Qadesh, I can give you two contemporary accounts, one Egyptian and one Hittite. Now these things have evidence. Until you learn what evidence is, you're left with gambling with what may have happened, like the rest of these fellows you think worthwhile telling us about.

I'm convinced.

Well, bugger me.

Incidentally, did you want to say something?


spin

spin

I just wonder what is your source for your knowledge of Pharisee training in the first century?


spin

spin

Don't choke on your corn flakes. Sadly, you are unaware of the evidence available. Would you like to go and look at the statues of Julius Caesar? They might help you get a little grasp of reality. How about Augustus? We have statues of him from the time he was about 20 through to his old age, showing his aging process. We have his inscriptions (Res Gestae) of his deeds. We have numerous monuments bearing inscriptions. These are the things of solid <grin> history. Secondary sources such as Suetonius and Tacitus only fill in the gaps.


Unfortunately that is not historical methodology. You have a report of a personage and you have to confirm it in some manner. You can't confirm it based on secondary evidence alone. You don't even know when the religous documents on the subject were written.

Nice cliches. But you as well have no evidence to back up what you say. YOu should come back when you have some.

I don't assume much borrowing from pagan sources, just a little infusion of Platonism (the logos which jumps to Jewish in Philo), but mainly varieties of Jewish thought, wisdom, the word from the mouth of God present at creation, the suffering saviour of Isaiah.

Hey, ya know dude, there may have been a Jesus, but neither you nor I have any of the evidence necessary.

Osiris is not directly relevant.

Cumont is a little old hat. You might try reading something written fifty years later.

Cite a primary source reference.

When were the gospels written? 150 CE?

I love authorities. Why don't you let them post and you give me your evidence?

And the prevalence of Superman comics "means that we have to take seriously the basic storyline"?

I guess this leads somewhere... but where?

And we have Paul's letters to Thecla and to Seneca. They gotta be real.

Name me one guaranteed writer from the 1st century who "speak of him as a factually existing character". Hey, I know, Josephus the devout Jew who calls Jesus "the Christ". Yeah, sure. Bowdlerized text that nobody in antiquity knew about.

Has anybody ever argued that Superman didn't exist?

Thrill me with a Mishna source from the 1st century.

It takes my breath away.

Great job, dude, but I wished you'd read this stuff before you sent it, so that you could make it a little easier to read by reducing the vast number of spelling mistakes. Ya know, I don't mind the occasional error, but there are limits.

Oh, and history is about evidence. You ain't got it, then you ain't doin' history. Get it?


spin

GakuseiDon

Lowder has an interesting article on how historical questions should be framed, and their application to the NT:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/indconf.html

Layman

Perhaps it is for the scholars to decide what constitute scholarly standards.

In any event, I was answering the poster's question. Toto didn't want to because he obviously finds the consensus of critical scholars of all stripes and backgrounds that Jesus existed to be embarassing.

He wanted to know the state of the question on Josephus in particular and Jesus generally. I gave it to him. The rest of you guys were posturing and trying to explain it away. That's fine I guess, but it did not answer his question.