Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chunk · 01-20-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

If you stay within mainstream scholarship, there is a 99.99% acceptance among scholars that Jesus did exist. Go to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc.., and they all teach that Jesus did exist. The basic summary is that Jesus was just one of the dozens of people claiming to be messiahas and miracle workers at that time (see Life of Brian by Monty Python

). He preached for 1-3 years, and had managed to gain a small following of believers. Eventually he was executed over Passover by Roman authorities as a criminal. Early in his ministry, there was wide diversity of belief in interpretation of his teachings, but some of his followers, believed that shortly after his death god would come with all his glory and that the end of the world was near. Stories about Jesus circulated around mainly thru oral tradition at first, and eventually some of them came to be written down. About 40 years later, the Jews revolted against the Romans, and this war was lost. After the failure of this war against the Romans, it is when we start to see the Gospels being written (with Mark being the first). So the Gospels are a reflection of how the early Christians were dealing with losing the war, and the fact that the second coming had not come. For over 40 years they were waiting for God to come in all his glory, and this they thought would happen shortly after his death! They dealt with these very depressing and hard times by telling stories about Jesus. This is a very brief summary, but for anyone interested Id recommend books written by Helmut Koester from Harvard, Paula Friedrickson from Boston University, or Bart Erhman from the University of North Carolina.

Is this the typical view of non-Christian scholars? Of course, I realise that some people will always have vastly different opinions, and of course there will be minor differences from person to person, but as a whole is this the typical opinion?

I read a lot about peoples criticisms to certian points of The Bible and Christianity, but not a complete theory for why we have these things if Jesus wasnt the son of God.

This seems to me like the most likely non-christian scenario.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-20-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

The evidence indicates that Nazareth has been around since the Middle Bronze Age.

This is not true. The archaeological site currently identified as Nazareth is a 2nd century village at best. Other signs of human habitation in the area for other times do not equate to evidence that this particular village existed then or that it was called Nazareth.

Quote:

Except they don't all do this. The guys from the Jesus Seminar certainly don't.

Actually, most of the members of the JS did exactly that. They are mostly Christians and many of them have clerical backgrounds. If you read their CV's, you'll see a lot of clergy or former clergy with Seminary education. JD Crossan is a former catholic priest, for instance.

Quote:

No. Gone With The Wind was always marketed as fiction, unlike the Gospels, two of which (Luke and John) explicitly indicated that their authors expected them to be taken as fact.

We don't actually know how the books were originally "marketed" but religious histories were not necessarily expected to be literally true.

Quote:

Also, there are no indications that the characters in that book existed in the outside world, no letters, no family records, etc.

There are no real indications that most of the characters in the Gospels existed in the outside world either

jjramsey · 01-20-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

This is not true. The archaeological site currently identified as Nazareth is a 2nd century village at best. Other signs of human habitation in the area for other times do not equate to evidence that this particular village existed then or that it was called Nazareth.

With Middle Bronze Age tombs and Iron Age silos. Uh, huh. Plus a controversy over whether there was a "refounding" in the second or third century B.C.E., because of the more extensive remains then.

I'm sorry, but the "Nazareth didn't exist in the first century" looks like nothing more than one of those factoids that circulates in atheist/skeptic circles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Actually, most of the members of the JS did exactly that. They are mostly Christians and many of them have clerical backgrounds. If you read their CV's, you'll see a lot of clergy or former clergy with Seminary education. JD Crossan is a former catholic priest, for instance.

Crossan is an example that proves my point, not yours. He believes that the body of Jesus was at best thrown in a shallow criminal's grave, not a tomb, and that he wasn't literally resurrected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

We don't actually know how the books were originally "marketed"

Luke 1:1-4 and John 20:30-31 would certainly indicate that the Gospels of Luke and John were meant to be read as nonfiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There are no real indications that most of the characters in the Gospels existed in the outside world either

There are indications for Jesus in Paul's letters and in the short reference to "James the brother of Jesus called Christ" in Josephus.

Jayhawker Soule · 01-20-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llyricist

Yes please, show me all the sayings he attributes to a living, breathing Jesus, show me any biographical details at all other than the seed of David, and crucifixion. Show me any aactions he attributes to a living, breathing Jesus.

Help me to understand the relevancy of this absence. Paul is preaching to the Gentiles. He had never met this Jesus. Worse, he shared none of the legitimacy of the "Pillars of Jerusalem". Why discuss that about which he had zero authority rather than focussing on the risen Christ?

Chris Weimer · 01-20-2006, 02:45 PM

Andrew,

When I said the gospels were fiction, I was talking about how Mark invented, in my opinion, much of the storyline in his gospel, and from there the other gospellers expanded it further. Matthew especially, since I know him best. There are clear indications that Matthew didn't necessarily "believe" what he wrote was 100% true - as history is a modern invention.

I haven't researched it fully yet, but I take Turton's theory of Mark being written for show. It has convinced me at first, and I haven't seen anything really against that.

Matthew, on the other hand, wrote his as fiction. However, it was "theological-fiction" instead of merely a good story. The whole notions of history, fiction, and forgery were lost on these people, I don't think it's fair to impose our standards.

Does that clarify?

I think I wrote this last time agreeing with you. I'll have to find the old thread again, but it's probably not worth it now that we both (I think) agree.

Chris

Chris Weimer · 01-20-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

I was referring to canonical sources for sayings attributed to JESUS, not to unattributed sayings or sayings attributed to "the Lord" or "God." Paul attributed only a few words, e.g., the eucharistic injunction, to Jesus. The other sources you list are non-canonical, and most are 2nd century.

Didymus

Why do the sources have to be canonical to be authentic? This makes you appear biased in your work, hell-bent on destroying Christianity instead of merely evaluating the evidence according to scholarly standards.

Chris

Llyricist · 01-20-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Help me to understand the relevancy of this absence. Paul is preaching to the Gentiles. He had never met this Jesus. Worse, he shared none of the legitimacy of the "Pillars of Jerusalem". Why discuss that about which he had zero authority rather than focussing on the risen Christ?

It is relevant to the fact that CW appears to be trying to construct a biography of a living breathing Jesus based solely on Paul's writings.

Chris Weimer · 01-20-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llyricist

It is relevant to the fact that CW appears to be trying to construct a biography of a living breathing Jesus based solely on Paul's writings.

And that's a strawman if I've ever seen one. Did you not read my position earlier? Where do I claim that I only use Paul?

Llyricist · 01-20-2006, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

And that's a strawman if I've ever seen one. Did you not read my position earlier? Where do I claim that I only use Paul?

Earlier:

Quote:

Paul claims that a real person named Jesus was crucified. By the time the gospels were written, you have a totally different person. I trash the gospels because they're fiction. However, Paul's epistles aren't fiction. There's a real person behind Paul who I'm (and historicists in general) are trying to extract.

THAT is the point we have been arguing for the last 3 pages.

NOW ya wanna fall back on "other sources"? who?

Chris Weimer · 01-20-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llyricist

Earlier:

THAT is the point we have been arguing for the last 3 pages.

NOW ya wanna fall back on "other sources"? who?

Oi, the earliest Christian traditions, of course. Note that these are distinct from the gospels, yet you can find their trace in the gospels. The faint rings of once prominent apocalypticism, Torah adherence, Messianic splendour, and an expectation of the return of Zion to her former glory. Gone, but not without a trace.

My point about Paul was that he thought Jesus was a real person. That's all I claim(ed). Paul also met people who had connections to Jesus and the earlier church, especially the titled James the Brother of the Lord, the Simon/Peter/Cephas, and the Twelve. Paul explicitly says the Jesus met these people. Why would he if he thought that Jesus was mythical?

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

01-20-2006, 02:45 PM	#75
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Andrew, When I said the gospels were fiction, I was talking about how Mark invented, in my opinion, much of the storyline in his gospel, and from there the other gospellers expanded it further. Matthew especially, since I know him best. There are clear indications that Matthew didn't necessarily "believe" what he wrote was 100% true - as history is a modern invention. I haven't researched it fully yet, but I take Turton's theory of Mark being written for show. It has convinced me at first, and I haven't seen anything really against that. Matthew, on the other hand, wrote his as fiction. However, it was "theological-fiction" instead of merely a good story. The whole notions of history, fiction, and forgery were lost on these people, I don't think it's fair to impose our standards. Does that clarify? I think I wrote this last time agreeing with you. I'll have to find the old thread again, but it's probably not worth it now that we both (I think) agree. Chris

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.