Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-08-2012, 05:10 AM

The interest is still focused on the notion of "historical"....

Sheshbazzar · 06-08-2012, 05:13 AM

Then #6 is all that one is welcome to comment on?

spin · 06-08-2012, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Then #6 is all that one is welcome to comment on?

#6 is what we are trying to get at. My aim is to try to find directions from which to do that, so you comment on whatever is necessary to get to a consensus understanding of "historical", "historicist", etc. Perhaps you find ways to see similarities or differences between #6 and the others. My half-ass thoughts on #6 could be a load of crap and doomed to be hacked up, but our aim in this thread is to get a better understanding of those terms in the thread title... in any functional way.

Will Wiley · 06-08-2012, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Then #6 is all that one is welcome to comment on?

#6 is what we are trying to get at. My aim is to try to find directions from which to do that, so you comment on whatever is necessary to get to a consensus understanding of "historical", "historicist", etc. Perhaps you find ways to see similarities or differences between #6 and the others. My half-ass thoughts on #6 could be a load of crap and doomed to be hacked up, but our aim in this thread is to get a better understanding of those terms in the thread title... in any functional way.

Ideally it would be a jesus grounded in primary sources, if possible. The problem is, I supect, that people will most likely disagree about whether this or that is a reliable primary source.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-08-2012, 06:47 AM

Any real Jesus is a historical Jesus. That's a fraudulent distinction. Everyone who exists exists historically. It may not be possible to recover information about a hypothetical "real Jesus," but that's not what makes a person "historical."

spin · 06-08-2012, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Any real Jesus is a historical Jesus. That's a fraudulent distinction.

I could just as easily say, "that's a rather shallow reaction." You are making a claim here that shouldn't merely be asserted, but examined for its functionality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Everyone who exists exists historically.

It is the meaning of "historical" that you are using rather than helping to define that is under examination. Personally, I think your use of "historical" so far is of little significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It may not be possible to recover information about a hypothetical "real Jesus," but that's not what makes a person "historical."

This may be more useful, but the idea needs to be elucidated. For example, if recoverable information about a hypothetically real person is not what makes a person historical what does?

spin · 06-08-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

#6 is what we are trying to get at. My aim is to try to find directions from which to do that, so you comment on whatever is necessary to get to a consensus understanding of "historical", "historicist", etc. Perhaps you find ways to see similarities or differences between #6 and the others. My half-ass thoughts on #6 could be a load of crap and doomed to be hacked up, but our aim in this thread is to get a better understanding of those terms in the thread title... in any functional way.

Ideally it would be a jesus grounded in primary sources, if possible. The problem is, I supect, that people will most likely disagree about whether this or that is a reliable primary source.

This is another problem we have to deal with. Evidence really needs to be validated for the case it is used for. Analysis of evidence is also something that can cause great problems because of an individual's commitment to some theory or belief that interferes with the most objective analysis we are capable of.

I agree that we need to (have and) consider sources of information when dealing with historical anything, as with the historical Jesus.

sotto voce · 06-08-2012, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

#6 is what we are trying to get at. My aim is to try to find directions from which to do that, so you comment on whatever is necessary to get to a consensus understanding of "historical", "historicist", etc. Perhaps you find ways to see similarities or differences between #6 and the others. My half-ass thoughts on #6 could be a load of crap and doomed to be hacked up, but our aim in this thread is to get a better understanding of those terms in the thread title... in any functional way.

Ideally it would be a jesus grounded in primary sources, if possible. The problem is, I supect, that people will most likely disagree about whether this or that is a reliable primary source.

This is another problem we have to deal with. Evidence really needs to be validated for the case it is used for. Analysis of evidence is also something that can cause great problems because of an individual's commitment to some theory or belief that interferes with the most objective analysis we are capable of.

Quite so.

aa5874 · 06-08-2012, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I can delineate at least seven Jesuses:

The real Jesus (hypothetically Jesus did exist and was thus real)
The traditional Jesus (the sum of all the tradition that tells us about Jesus)
The gospel Jesus (the Jesus we extract pure from what the gospels tell us)
The confessional Jesus (the Jesus that a believer believes in, being their personal selection of accepted notions and cogitations)
The commonsense Jesus (the modern anachronistic construct that makes sense to the commonsenser)
The historical Jesus (who can be derived from historical methodology) and
The mythical Jesus (actually three different Jesuses, one who embodies a myth, one who is the aggregate of myths and one that is a load of bollox)

Any thoughts?

Seven Jesuses!!!! What a load of BS.

1. King Herod the Great in the NT either really existed or did NOT.

2. Pilate the Governor in the NT either really existed or did NOT.

3. Tiberius Caesar in the NT either really existed or did NOT.

4. Caiaphas the High Priest in the NT either really existed or did NOT.

5. Gabriel the Angel in the NT either really existed or did NOT.

6. Satan in the NT either really existed or did NOT.

7. The Apostle called Peter in the NT either really existed or NOT.

8. Mary in the NT either really existed or did NOT.

9. Paul in the NT either really existed or did NOT.

10. Jesus in the NT either REALLY existed or did NOT.

It is just TOTAL nonsense that there are Seven Jesus--absolutely absurd.

If we had SEVEN Jesuses to chose from then we would have SEVEN versions of George Washington, Robin Hood, Alice in Wonderland, or any character found in source.

Agnostics may be CONFUSED.

Agnostics do NOT know or don't care to know.

History is extremely easy to reconstruct. The history of Jesus is NO different.

The NT Canon and Apologetic sources claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

We are dealing with a Ghost story.

We have the dated documented History of Jesus.

Jesus was just a Myth Fable of antiquity that was believed like all the other Myth fables.

We have the Ghost stories---the Ghost stories have survived and DATED.

See ALL the EXISTING DATED CODICES.

We can reconstruct Jesus rather easily.

Let us do History.

Sinaiticus gMatthew 1

Quote:

18 But the birth of Jesus Christ was thus: After his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus did NOT exist based on the EXISTING DATED CODICES.

Jesus has NO real existence--NO REAL history.

Agnostics do NOT know.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-08-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Any real Jesus is a historical Jesus. That's a fraudulent distinction.

I could just as easily say, "that's a rather shallow reaction." You are making a claim here that shouldn't merely be asserted, but examined for its functionality.

It is the meaning of "historical" that you are using rather than helping to define that is under examination. Personally, I think your use of "historical" so far is of little significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It may not be possible to recover information about a hypothetical "real Jesus," but that's not what makes a person "historical."

This may be more useful, but the idea needs to be elucidated. For example, if recoverable information about a hypothetically real person is not what makes a person historical what does?

Mere existence in the physical universe. History just means "everything that has ever happened before right now." History is not just the sum of what has been methodically ascertained or recovered, it's everything, period, recovered or not.

Was there a historical Jack the Ripper? What recoverable information do we have about him?

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

06-08-2012, 05:10 AM	#61
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	The interest is still focused on the notion of "historical"....

06-08-2012, 05:13 AM	#62
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Then #6 is all that one is welcome to comment on?

06-08-2012, 06:47 AM	#65
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Any real Jesus is a historical Jesus. That's a fraudulent distinction. Everyone who exists exists historically. It may not be possible to recover information about a hypothetical "real Jesus," but that's not what makes a person "historical."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.