Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 07-11-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

People make many claims which are false, and which can be known to be false, but which are not logically impossible.

Now, this is logical.

People may also make many claims that are illogical, and which can be known and shown to be illogical.

But so far on this thread you have not pointed to one single example of somebody making a claim and then shown it to be illogical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The assumption that there was an HJ and that HJ was from Nazareth using unreliable sources where Jesus of Nazareth was described as a Child of a Ghost may be a false conclusion based on logical fallacies.

It is quite logical that if HJ is a false conclusion then it may have been produced by logical fallacies.

If it is a false conclusion then either it was produced by fallacious reasoning or it was produced without fallacious reasoning. You have not yet shown that it is a false conclusion produced by fallacious reasoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is so basic and logical that I really don't understand what you are trying to achieve.

I am trying to show that you have not made out your case.

aa5874 · 07-11-2011, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are merely repeating what you think. It is ALREADY known people make all sorts of claims about Jesus which are ILLOGICAL.

There is nothing illogical about choosing to believe part of a document and to not believe another part.

If someone tells you they went to the grocery store and when they were in the store they saw a man who was 9 feet tall are you going to immediately conclude that they didn't even go to the store?

Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

The authors of gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, the epistles of the so-called Family of Jesus and Revelation did NOT say they saw Jesus anywhere on earth while he was alive and that is the part of story that I may have believed.

Please, who saw Jesus in the grocery shop or anywhere?

Not me.

There are no credible historical sources for HJ and Jesus was NOT described as a man so it is illogical assume that there was an HJ.

It May be logical to assume that Paul was a man in the NT based on his description. It is logical to assume Pilate was a man in the NT based on his description.

It may also logical to assume Gabriel in the NT was a non-human character based on his description.

It may be logical to assume that Satan in the NT was a non-human character based on his description.

It may be QUITE LOGICAL to assume Jesus in the NT was non-human based on his description.

There is simply no logical reason why the story of Jesus the Child of the Ghost In the NT was assumed to be about an HJ.

mountainman · 07-11-2011, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

What kind of data do we have, to support the HJ theory, as that theory has been articulated on this forum, though not necessarily on this very thread, and certainly not by speaking.....?

Has that theory been articulated on this forum? By whom, where, when?

Eusebius submitted the first HJ theory for peer review at Nicaea c.325 CE. Ever since then the HJ theory has been a popular articulation of apologists and proselytes and "Biblical Scholars". There has been an endless procession of articulation on this forum of the HJ theory. Where have you been?

What avi said was that the theory had been articulated on this forum. I asked by whom, where, when, it had been articulated on this forum. You have not shown by whom, where, when, it was articulated on this forum.

Use the forum search function. Search for "Historical Jesus Theory".

I did. I got dozens of results. So far not one of the ones I have looked at has been an example of somebody articulating an 'HJ theory' or a 'historical Jesus theory'.

Then start with Developing table as beginner's guide to Jesus positions" that presents a spectrum of positions. The spectrum is capable of being simultaneously viewable as a spectrum of the "Historical Jesus Theories" and a spectrum of the "Mythical Jesus Theories", with the key item historicity being positive in the former and zero or null in the latter.

The HJ postulate is that the HJ has positive historicity and it is the use of this postulate that distinguishes HJ and MJ theories. Unfortunately however for the HJ postulate, it is at odds with the very scarce and ambiguous evidence itself. It is up to those who assert positive historicity to cite and provide the evidence in support of positive historicity. The virgin birth, resurrection, the ascension, the miracles of the fishes and loaves, and Lazarus, and the coin in the fish's mouth, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum, are not conducive as evidence of historicity.

Hence, the OP.

Quote:

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[0 to 100%]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]

aa5874 · 07-11-2011, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, this is logical.

People may also make many claims that are illogical, and which can be known and shown to be illogical.

But so far on this thread you have not pointed to one single example of somebody making a claim and then shown it to be illogical....

Don't you understand that what you say is BLATANTLY erroneous yet you keep on repeating the same fallacy over and over?

What are you really trying to accomplish?

Don't you KNOW the claims about HJ Scholars about HJ?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

Don't you understand that there are NO sources of antiquity that show there was an ordinary man with a human father who lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate.

There is NO logical reason to assume HJ when no source of antiquity mentioned HJ.

On the other hand, there may be logical reason to assume there was an historical Pilate, Tiberius, Caiaphas or John the Baptist based on their descriptions in the NT and other sources.

But there is no logical reason to assume Gabriel the angel, Satan the Devil, and Jesus the Holy Ghost were figures of history when they were NOT described an ordinary humans.

TedM · 07-11-2011, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

There is nothing illogical about choosing to believe part of a document and to not believe another part.

If someone tells you they went to the grocery store and when they were in the store they saw a man who was 9 feet tall are you going to immediately conclude that they didn't even go to the store?

Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

Gladly: John 21:

Quote:

20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

Quote:

Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

I just did. Does that make you a HJer now? or a Christian? Which parts are you now believing now that I've given you the evidence you have requested--the firsthand witness testimony.

Quote:

There are no credible historical sources for HJ and Jesus was NOT described as a man so it is illogical assume that there was an HJ.

You are right in pointing out that they weren't writing with the intention of describing a mere human being who couldn't perform miracles, or be raised from the dead. I have a simple response to that: Duh. Everyone knows this. It is a waste of time for you to point it out as though it needs to be pointed out.

However, because I believe they were not all making everything up, I suppose that SOME THINGS they said about Jesus were probably true. Since it couldn't have been the non-human part of Jesus, it must be the human part (ie the stuff that reminds us of ourselves perhaps--we talk, we weep, we sleep, we eat, we may pray, etc..)...and maybe even some of the things he said or did, people they say he interacted with, etc..

Why is it illogical to conclude that SOMETHING they said about Jesus was true while rejecting other parts on supernatural grounds?

Are you EVER going to get what we are saying?

Prediction: no, you will simply keep repeating the same mantra year after year.

Quote:

It may be QUITE LOGICAL to assume Jesus in the NT was non-human based on his description.

Ok, does that make you a Christian now?

J-D · 07-11-2011, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, this is logical.

People may also make many claims that are illogical, and which can be known and shown to be illogical.

But so far on this thread you have not pointed to one single example of somebody making a claim and then shown it to be illogical....

Don't you understand that what you say is BLATANTLY erroneous yet you keep on repeating the same fallacy over and over?

Don't you understand that what you say is BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS, yet you repeatedly demonstrate your own LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of what a LOGICAL FALLACY is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What are you really trying to accomplish?

I've told you that ALREADY. I am pointing out that YOU have not made our your case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Don't you KNOW the claims about HJ Scholars about HJ?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_f...storical_Jesus

Don't you understand that there are NO sources of antiquity that show there was an ordinary man with a human father who lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John and was crucified under Pilate.

Don't you understand that an UNSOURCED ASSERTION is not necessarily a LOGICAL FALLACY?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is NO logical reason to assume HJ when no source of antiquity mentioned HJ.

On the other hand, there may be logical reason to assume there was an historical Pilate, Tiberius, Caiaphas or John the Baptist based on their descriptions in the NT and other sources.

But there is no logical reason to assume Gabriel the angel, Satan the Devil, and Jesus the Holy Ghost were figures of history when they were NOT described an ordinary humans.

J-D · 07-11-2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

What kind of data do we have, to support the HJ theory, as that theory has been articulated on this forum, though not necessarily on this very thread, and certainly not by speaking.....?

Has that theory been articulated on this forum? By whom, where, when?

Eusebius submitted the first HJ theory for peer review at Nicaea c.325 CE. Ever since then the HJ theory has been a popular articulation of apologists and proselytes and "Biblical Scholars". There has been an endless procession of articulation on this forum of the HJ theory. Where have you been?

What avi said was that the theory had been articulated on this forum. I asked by whom, where, when, it had been articulated on this forum. You have not shown by whom, where, when, it was articulated on this forum.

Use the forum search function. Search for "Historical Jesus Theory".

I did. I got dozens of results. So far not one of the ones I have looked at has been an example of somebody articulating an 'HJ theory' or a 'historical Jesus theory'.

Then start with Developing table as beginner's guide to Jesus positions" that presents a spectrum of positions. The spectrum is capable of being simultaneously viewable as a spectrum of the "Historical Jesus Theories" and a spectrum of the "Mythical Jesus Theories", with the key item historicity being positive in the former and zero or null in the latter.

The HJ postulate is that the HJ has positive historicity and it is the use of this postulate that distinguishes HJ and MJ theories. Unfortunately however for the HJ postulate, it is at odds with the very scarce and ambiguous evidence itself. It is up to those who assert positive historicity to cite and provide the evidence in support of positive historicity. The virgin birth, resurrection, the ascension, the miracles of the fishes and loaves, and Lazarus, and the coin in the fish's mouth, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum, are not conducive as evidence of historicity.

Hence, the OP.

Quote:

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[0 to 100%]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]

That table describes various positions which (it alleges) are held by various people. It does not even attempt to articulate a case in favour of any one of those positions, and if it's not attempting to make a case then, by logical necessity, it is not making a fallacious case. If somebody says 'some people believe this, while other people believe that', that may be a correct summary of what those people think, or it may be mistaken, but it's not a fallacy.

mountainman · 07-12-2011, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
[Historicity %]
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
[90-100%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson, N. T. Wright, James Tabor
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
[40-90%]
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, Stevan L. Davies, Raymond E. Brown, Mark Goodacre, J.P. Meier, Bart D. Ehrman, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
[10-40%]
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core figure behind the gospel Jesus existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells, Robert H. Gundry
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. In the Atwill version, it was the policy of the emperor Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Hermann Detering (*), Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious forgery
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
[Zero %]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
[0 to 100%]
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price[/T2]

That table describes various positions which (it alleges) are held by various people. It does not even attempt to articulate a case in favour of any one of those positions, and if it's not attempting to make a case then, by logical necessity, it is not making a fallacious case.

A very very lazy and simplistic conclusion. See the last column containing author names. These authors have written books and/or articles in favor of these positions. The table summarises sources for HJ theories. It is up to the reader to review these theories. It's never too late to start.

aa5874 · 07-12-2011, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

..Well, just tell me who said they saw Jesus of Nazareth anywhere on earth while he was alive and I may believe part of the stories.

Gladly: John 21:

Quote:

20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

John 21 has serious problems.

1. The Gospel of John is NOT a credible source.

2. John 21 appears to have been an interpolation.

3. Based on "Against Praxeas" 25 by Tertullian gJohn terminated on the 20th chapter.

Logically you must FIRST produce a credible source. The NT is NOT considered a credible source even by HJ Scholars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...However, because I believe they were not all making everything up, I suppose that SOME THINGS they said about Jesus were probably true. Since it couldn't have been the non-human part of Jesus, it must be the human part (ie the stuff that reminds us of ourselves perhaps--we talk, we weep, we sleep, we eat, we may pray, etc..)...and maybe even some of the things he said or did, people they say he interacted with, etc.....

Fantastic!!! You have made my day. What a relief!! Thank you very much!!

You have presented the PERFECT example of a logical fallacy.

You believe that Jesus was an ordinary man so it could not have been a Child of a Ghost that lived in Nazareth.

Your belief is irrational or highly illogical since it needs NO actual evidence from antiquity.

You fail to accept that the Gospels may have just been stories or myth fables that people believed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Why is it illogical to conclude that SOMETHING they said about Jesus was true while rejecting other parts on supernatural grounds?

Why is it logical to accept anything in the NT about Jesus as history WITHOUT external corroborative sources?

Why is it logical just to isolate plausible events about Jesus and believe they are true WITHOUT external corroborative sources?

You seem not to understand the Jesus stories may be historical documents that fundamentally represent what people BELIEVED in antiquity.

People believed Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and the authors may have simply documented what people believed.

It can be shown that Christians BELIEVED Jesus was a Child of a Ghost and God Incarnate who was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven but it cannot be shown that Christians of antiquity KNEW that Jesus was an ordinary man who could not and did NOT resurrect or ascended and still worshiped him as God knowing he was man.

It is irrational or illogical to believe an ADMITTED unreliable source without first seeking corroboration or AFTER no external corroboration can be found.

It is completely logical that the Jesus stories may have been myth fables just as they were believed in antiquity.

Vorkosigan · 07-12-2011, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That table describes various positions which (it alleges) are held by various people. It does not even attempt to articulate a case in favour of any one of those positions, and if it's not attempting to make a case then, by logical necessity, it is not making a fallacious case.

A very very lazy and simplistic conclusion. See the last column containing author names. These authors have written books and/or articles in favor of these positions. The table summarises sources for HJ theories. It is up to the reader to review these theories. It's never too late to start.

A useful table. Thanks.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.