Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MadPhatCat · 03-21-2006, 05:30 PM

Does it really matter if some dude named Jesus existed back then? So maybe the 'Bible Jesus' is based on a 'real Jesus'. Or inspired by a real Jesus. Kind of like how some TV movies are "inspired by actual events." And? Does that make Christianity the One True Religion? I don't think so.

Christians believe
1) Jesus actually existed
2) Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected and all that jazz.

They have two hoops to jump through, and while the first one may be tough to support, the second one is almost impossible. So maybe he existed, maybe he didn't, but answering this will not prove anything.

mens_sana · 03-21-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

...Schürer's views...

You might like to take a look at the New English Edition (T&T Clark, Ltd) of Schürer's work, edited by Geza Vermes, et al. "Excursus II - Josephus on Jesus and James" (Vol.1,p.428ff.). The current editors have "revised" the older view considerably. The Excursus on Quirinius' Census is also very interesting and does appropriate damage to the usual conservative positions.

mens_sana · 03-21-2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadPhatCat

Does it really matter if some dude named Jesus existed back then? So maybe the 'Bible Jesus' is based on a 'real Jesus'. Or inspired by a real Jesus. Kind of like how some TV movies are "inspired by actual events." And? Does that make Christianity the One True Religion? I don't think so.

There are a few mythicists who are as rabid in their views as Peter Ruckman is in his. The easiest way to completely discredit the Christian beliefs that "betrayed" them is to bypass all the academic, scholarly argument and just assert that it is all "myth," and therefore fiction. If Jesus is a myth, then the religion is ridiculous and has no possible claim on anyone. That it has no claim even if Jesus were historical is too much effort to argue.

Toto · 03-21-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

There are a few mythicists who are as rabid in their views as Peter Ruckman is in his. The easiest way to completely discredit the Christian beliefs that "betrayed" them is to bypass all the academic, scholarly argument and just assert that it is all "myth," and therefore fiction. If Jesus is a myth, then the religion is ridiculous and has no possible claim on anyone. That it has no claim even if Jesus were historical is too much effort to argue.

Who are these people? Why does a mythical Jesus make the religion more ridiculous than a deluded apocalyptic nut?

Jehanne · 03-21-2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

I don't see the comparison. Where are the 1st century government records (local or national) today that list vital stats for 1st century populace at the peon level? No one kept track of that sort of thing, outside the local tax collector, and he did not report the details to the government, he just handed over the required amount of money. I find no amazement at all at the lack of records. That WE are amazed at such is solely because we are looking at the period through (conditioned) eyes that say Jesus is so important historically that there should have been some records.

I agree with everything that you say, but you are missing my point somewhat. I, for instance, am a "nobody." If some historian wanted evidence of the existence of "Don Flood," then he/she would have to consult my birth certificate, social security information, death certificate, etc. Jesus, on the other hand, was a "popular guy"; or, rather, that was the way in which he was portrayed in the Gospels. And yet, no mention of him by the secular historians of the day. Was he simply a minor religious figure who ended-up being crucified by the Romans? Or, was he simply the invention of some epileptic visionaries (or, visionaries who had some other mental/neurological illness)? But, I hope that you see my point now...

Jehanne · 03-21-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

"Artifactual" evidence is a good term.

I had to look that one up, but it's a good description of what I am trying to say.

Jehanne · 03-21-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Who are these people? Why does a mythical Jesus make the religion more ridiculous than a deluded apocalyptic nut?

Jesus was a religious loon or he never existed in the first place. I opt for the latter, but am prepared to admit the former. Either way, this thread is nothing more than a "historical curiosity" for me.

Rick Sumner · 03-21-2006, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I mentioned there the murals at Dura Europa, Jewish images of historical figures, showing that Hellenistic Jews showed no distate for iconography, and quoted this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Near riots under Pilate because of standards borne by his garrison and Herod's care to avoid external images on his palace (among many other examples) show otherwise.

But that's really neither here nor there--I offered iconography as a possible reason why Jews didn't keep relics, which - for whatever reason - they didn't. You avoided all of the specific challenges to your claims. Should I expect a fuller response later?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Roger Pearse · 03-22-2006, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

Modern scholarship may be absolutely correct -- the references in Josephus may be authentic. On the other hand, if an early (say, early 2nd-century), complete manuscript of Josephus would be discovered tomorrow that had those references missing, then that would proof that those references were forged. Agreed?

Probably. But we must not 'see-saw' here, so let's be specific.

If we were to find a complete manuscript of all of book 18, or a substantial portion thereof, and it was complete aside from these two passages, then I think that it would certainly shift the balance of probabilities, since it would witness to a text tradition that did not contain them.

But we must be aware (as no doubt you are) that passages get omitted sometimes by accident from manuscripts, and eccentric copies get made, and material gets added by other means than forgery (which is interpolation for fraudulent purposes -- a fairly unusual way for a text to change, and hard to prove although easy to infer). So the evidence would not be absolute. However I think that I would be inclined to believe it, in that case.

Such a find, although marvellous, is most unlikely, however. I suppose there might be a codex from the 3rd or 4th century out there somewhere, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 03-22-2006, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I agree that that particular reason is not overly strong. I was thinking of the use of the word χριστος which is never used by Josephus (except in the longer section) and would likely be incomprehensible to a Roman audience in this context at the time of Josephus writing.

The term Christos appears in Suetonius, Pliny, Tacitus and subsequently as the normal Roman designation of Jesus. Had it been otherwise, we might be referring to 'Jesusists' rather than 'Christians.'

Quote:

Also, Photius Codex 238 doesn't show a reference to christ. Those two reasons are far stronger, I think.

Codex 238 is online, summarising 5 books.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

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

03-21-2006, 05:30 PM	#101
MadPhatCat Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: Last Seen Fleeing A Maximum Security Prison. Posts: 4,457	Does it really matter if some dude named Jesus existed back then? So maybe the 'Bible Jesus' is based on a 'real Jesus'. Or inspired by a real Jesus. Kind of like how some TV movies are "inspired by actual events." And? Does that make Christianity the One True Religion? I don't think so. Christians believe 1) Jesus actually existed 2) Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected and all that jazz. They have two hoops to jump through, and while the first one may be tough to support, the second one is almost impossible. So maybe he existed, maybe he didn't, but answering this will not prove anything.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.