Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-26-2007, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If we had no other Christian documents from the first century, the gospels would suffice to establish a prima facie claim that a charismatic rabbi named Jesus lived in Galilee, gathered a few disciples, preached a few sermons, and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It really doesn't matter that much whether we know who wrote them. Of course we could not rule out the possibility that they were fiction, but we would need some kind of evidence for that to assert that they were probably fiction.

I totally disagree. If there were no other documents from the 1st century, the Gospels would still be internally inconsistent, contradictory and erroneous.

What document was used as prima facie to establish that the Greek Gods or the ancient Egyptian Gods were myths?

Doug Shaver · 05-27-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I totally disagree.

I totally couldn't care less.

Johnny Skeptic · 05-27-2007, 11:36 AM

If a historical Jesus existed, how did he die, and where was he buried?

aa5874 · 05-27-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a historical Jesus existed, how did he die, and where was he buried?

If a person declares that the Jesus of the NT existed, but admits that the description of his miraculous birth and resurrection is erroneous and did not ocur, then then it would be virtually impossible, at so late a date, to contemplate or determine , with no historical reference to the Jesus of the NT, how, when, why, or where the Jesus of the NT died or even buried.

Once any part of the Jesus story is challenged, and found to be in error, then any part can be examined for veracity. For example, if a person claims the resurrection is false and did not occur, then it can be that the description of the burial may also be false, and working backwards, it may also be that the crucifixion, his life and his birth may be false.

If the NT's depiction of Jesus is false and there is no other credible source about him, then guesswork, speculation, rumors and faith may salvage his historicity.

Doug Shaver · 05-27-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

But what evidence is there that they, too, weren't simply written by someone else, who was claiming to be Paul?

What did Paul do that would make anyone want to pretend to be him? And how do you know that?

John Kesler · 05-28-2007, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is no historically reliable 'oral tradition' about Jefferson's fathering Sally Hemming's children. The tale is known to have started as a vicious, politically motivated rumour.

From your source, my emphasis:

Quote:

In September 1802, political journalist James T. Callender, a disappointed office-seeker who had once been an ally of Jefferson, wrote in a Richmond newspaper that Jefferson had for many years "kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves." "Her name is Sally," Callender continued, adding that Jefferson had "several children" by her. Although there had been rumors of a sexual relationship between Jefferson and a slave before 1802, Callender's article spread the story widely...Over the years, however, belief in a Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings relationship was perpetuated in private. Two of her children - Madison and Eston - indicated that Jefferson was their father, and this belief has been relayed through generations of their descendants as an important family truth...Several people close to Thomas Jefferson or the Monticello community believed that he was the father of Sally Hemings' children.

Also from the Monticello site, different page, comes this, again my emphasis:

Quote:

1802. Journalist James T. Callender, although his account is obviously sensationalized, stated that he was repeating what he had heard from others; he included some details that can be verified, and others that cannot.

Callender helped spread the story, but it is inaccurate to say that the story, "is known to have started as a vicious, politically motivated rumour."

Solo · 05-28-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Callender helped spread the story, but it is inaccurate to say that the story, "is known to have started as a vicious, politically motivated rumour."

No, I don't think so. The burden of historical proof would be on those who claim that Callender merely copied local gossip. It was the dissemination in print of a rumour, which has no documented basis, which gave rise to the "legend". (,see e.g. Rebecca & James F. McMurry's book) (or via: amazon.co.uk)). The fact of the matter remains that the claim of Jefferson descent for Sally Heming's offspring was made only in 1873 by Madison Hemings with no documented trace that his family believed this to be true previously. The paternal DNA of Jefferson found in Eston Hemings' descendants narrows the possible paternity of Eston to two dozens males in Virginia, many of them regular visitors at the estate.

At any rate, the affair seems to illustrate the politicization of American history: see the rebuttal of the Jefferson's Foundation report made by a "Scholars' Commission" at Ashland U.

Jiri

3DJay · 05-28-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

What did Paul do that would make anyone want to pretend to be him? And how do you know that?

How do I know what? I give up...what did he do? And how do you know that?

Peace

darstec · 05-29-2007, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Here are some articles to get you started:

Sylvia Rodriguez, "Subaltern Historiography on the Rio Grande: On Gutiérrez's "When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away", a review of Ramón A. Gutiérrez When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away: Marriage, Sexuality, and Power in New Mexico, 1500-1846, American Ethnologist, Vol. 21, No. 4. (1994): 892-899.

Amsbury, Clifton, "On the Reliability of Oral and Traditional History", American Ethnologist, Vol. 22, No. 2. (1995): 412.

Ernest S. Burch, Jr. "More on the Reliability of Oral and Traditional History", American Ethnologist, Vol. 23, No. 1. (1996): 131.

Ruth Finnegan, "A Note on Oral Tradition and Historical Evidence", History and Theory, Vol. 9, No. 2. (1970): 195-201.

That is a bibliography, and no citations. And a meager bibliography at that.

Doug Shaver · 05-29-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

How do I know what? I give up...what did he do? And how do you know that?

What I believe he did was write several of the letters attributed to him.

If none of those letters were by him, then somebody else wrote them pretending to be him. My question is: Why would someone want to pretend to be him?

Presumably, it had to have been because Paul had done something to make a name for himself in the Christian community. If anyone says, "Because he did X," I want to know how we know he did X. We cannot infer anything about his ministry from the letters if we assume he didn't write them. Our only other ostensible source for Paul's history is the book of Acts, and it seems quite odd to me that anyone would trust anything reported in Acts if they doubt the authenticity of the Pauline corpus.

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

05-27-2007, 11:36 AM	#73
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	If a historical Jesus existed, how did he die, and where was he buried?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.