Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gdeering · 11-27-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdeering

]But I'll toss one to you, assuming that we both understand that the Gospels are anonymous and produced decades or a centuries after an assumed HJ starting date - which is the first gospel and how old is Jesus when we first meet him?

Not sure what you're driving at here. My understanding of the predominance of scholarly opinion is that Mark was possibly the first of our present gospels written, and the four in the NT were written between about 70 and 95 CE. But of course all sorts of oral and perhaps written pre-gospels were around before that. And many other "gospels", or at least documents mentioning Jesus, were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and perhaps even later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

What was the reason for your question?

I was asking because just taking Mark alone how old is Jesus and where is there any history about the man, he just seems to show up? Mark was first, so what can we learn from him? I would then use some real history and see how much this makes sense with our understanding of the basic cultural life of first century Judean males. It leads really to a simple question referring to what kind of a guy Jesus might have been, there's no trick. I am not interested in a debate on this question, I am just trying to establish a way to use a source and other forms of historical investigation.

I am not interested in documents we don't have, or other stories in other Gospels. Christians kept what they liked and tossed the rest, without a full picture of any earlier texts we do not have a way to understand their intentions. The later Gospel accumulation of folklore needs to be looked at in turn, and contrasted with Paul and then contrasted with our knowledge of the myriad forms of Christianity in the first and second centuries.

Gregg

aa5874 · 11-27-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That is probably true for any given scholar who is regarded as an expert about the life of Jesus. The problem is that there consensus among those experts in general as to what thing about Jesus' life falls into which of those categories. They do agree that category (1) probably includes (a) he was an itinerant preacher, (b) he had some disciples, and (c) he was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Beyond that, they agree on hardly anything. Some think most of what the gospels report belongs in category (1), some of it in (3) and none in (2). Some think very little of it belongs in category (1). Some think most of the rest belongs in category (2), others would put most of it in (3).

But, it is not really being questioned that some experts believe Jesus was historical, it is the basis for the belief that is questioned which cannot be answered unless historical evidence of antiquity can be found.

The historicity of Jesus cannot be successfully argued on belief alone.

There is no historical evidence that Jesus was itinerant preacher, not even in the NT.

There is no historical evidence external of the NT and Church writings that the Jews in the 1st century asked Pilate to crucify a man who was exonerated of all charges.

There is no historical evidence external of the NT and the Church writings that there were disciples of a deified Jew and told Jews to abandon the Laws of Moses, including circumcision, while the Temple was standing.

In essence, there is NO BASIS for the HJ except on belief alone.

ercatli · 11-27-2009, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You seem to number umpteen and one who has no presentable reason for holding the belief that there was a historical Jesus. Try as one can to get them to up their efforts, none of the umpteen and one ever, ever puts any evidence on the table.

Like I said in the OP, I was inviting you (collectively) to present your reasons to me as to why you think I'm wrong and should change. If you don't wish to do that, then on this thread at least, I guess we have nothing to say. Best wishes.

Steven Carr · 11-27-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Like I said in the OP, I was inviting you (collectively) to present your reasons to me as to why you think I'm wrong and should change. If you don't wish to do that, then on this thread at least, I guess we have nothing to say. Best wishes.

So Erclati could not reconcile what Paul was saying with what he believes,so he ignored the Biblical data.

He can see an elephant in the room, but has been told by his scholars there is no elephant, so simply ignores the elephant.

ercatli · 11-27-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You've got the books. Consult the great men, show the evidence and prove me wrong.

Quote:

Working with the resources that everyone has available to them, there is no evidence to show that Jesus was a historical figure.

In the previous discussion, I quoted a number of scholars who had greater expertise than me, and I would guess you, and who concluded that there was plenty of evidence, by the standards of historical analysis. In fact, I can only find two recognised (i.e. by their peers) scholars (Price & Carrier) who think there was not a historical Jesus, though of course there could well be others. If this thread was about those scholars, I could quote them all again, and I could point you to their reasons.

But this thread is about other people's reasons why they reject the consensus of scholars and hold to a different view. So far you haven't given me any reason why you do that. I invite you again to do so.

Quote:

This is the usual tack of the historical Jesusist.

I think you are just being provocative, though I am happy to be proved wrong, and you don't seem to want to present your case and discuss it. That's fine, but let's not waste time in bickering, and just leave it be, shall we?

Best wishes.

Clivedurdle · 11-27-2009, 12:10 PM

A good understanding of myth and legend is critical.

Quote:

In search of myths & heroes: exploring four epic legends of the world By Michael Wood

Book overview
In this compelling new book, accompanying the PBS television series of the same name, historian Michael Wood, whose renowned adventures have taken him to many remote and exciting places around the globe, now goes in search of four powerful legends: Shangri-La, the Golden Fleece, the Queen of Sheba, and the Holy Grail. Gorgeously illustrated by Steve Razzetti, with full-color photographs of some of the most beautiful landscapes and cities on earth,In Search of Myths and Heroesis a series of real journeys to real places and an encounter with the living descendants of the ancient cultures that produced the four legends. From the mountains of Tibet to the coasts of Ethiopia and Yemen to the city of Jerusalem and the far west of Ireland, Wood brings us along as he separates fact from fiction and discovers why these famous stories still captivate us. Michael Wood's In Search of Myths & Heroes explores four remarkable legends that have endured from ancient eras to modern times. Shangri-la: The Paradise Myth From Babylonia to ancient Tibet to Frank Capra's movieLost Horizon--the story of an earthly paradise has been immortalized through the ages. But was there a real Shangri-la? Jason & the Golden Fleece: The Hero's Quest Possibly the oldest story in world literature and one still told today--fromGilgameshtoStar Wars--Jason's quest is that of a young man who must venture into the unknown to complete an impossible task. It is a story of bravery, treachery, and love, but what price must our hero pay for achieving his "mission impossible"? The Queen of Sheba: The Woman of Power The tale of Sheba, told for more than two and half millennia in Arabia, the Near East, Africa, and Europe, is the story of a woman who is a founder of nations, a fantasy lover, the personification of wisdom, adored and demonized in equal measure. Is this the fate of powerful women even today? Arthur: The Once & Future King Arthur, said to have ruled in a golden age, had his power broken by human weakness and greed. His story, the myth of the king who will one day return, is echoed in nearly every culture in the world. But who was Arthur and why do we need to believe in him and his future reign?

http://books.google.com/books?id=jl3...gbs_navlinks_s

ercatli · 11-27-2009, 12:24 PM

Hi SNM, thanks for joining the discussion. I appreciate your thoughtful comments, and would like to discuss a few of them please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Bible scholars do not have more or less evidence than you. All of the things they've read in relation to this amorphous mess of early Christianity is open to you. You can read the documents yourself. The only challenge is that you have to rely on their translations of the documents since none of them were originally written in English.

That's the only roadblock, and it's still not much of a roadblock.

I can't agree with you here. Even if one has a good translation, even if one can read the original Greek, one still has to place things in context. As a reader, I have two choices - I can read the text as it is presented to me, and accept it on face value (not what we usually do with most things we read), or I can seek to evaluate it and come to a conclusion. I can do the former with no difficulty, but if I want to do the latter, I need to understand context, culture, the writers' purposes, etc, and that requires a lot of background (because the culture and location and time are so far removed from me). I have quite a bit of background in this stuff, but I am still constantly finding things that I didn't know that are relevant to the questions I ask.

For example, you say: "Do you not realize that the entire reason for the existence of the gospel of Matthew is to be a polemic against Mark?" This is a very detailed conclusion (whether correct or not). I have been reading the NT for many, many years, and this has never occurred to me. And now you have mentioned it, how do I know if it is true? I need help.

Quote:

The only evidence we have for the existence of Jesus is the belief that he existed.

What do you mean by this? We have the documents, NT and other, we have some limited archaeology. This is more than belief. What exactly do you mean?

Quote:

John is a polemic against those Christians who thought that Jesus was just a spirit being without flesh and blood. This means there were enough Christians who thought this that it deserved its own independent gospel. Who knows what Jesus would have said and done if John's version of Jesus hadn't won out.

But we also have the Synoptics, so John didn't "win out", and we do know what Jesus said and did outside John. Again, can you explain what you mean here please?

Quote:

This primary evidence for Jesus is theology and polemic. These Christians are using Jesus as their mouthpiece to express what they believed about Jesus. How can you trust these type of writings to contain anything authentic about the man?

But you would be aware that this is a common problem in historical analysis, not just in the NT. So, should we treat the NT differently to how we treat other documents of similar age?

Quote:

Sure, there could have been a person named Jesus who began the cult. But what can we possibly know about him? What methodology can we use to separate the authentic Jesus from the sockpuppet Jesus? I don't think there is any.

But if the experts say (1) that they can, with reasonable probability, separate out the two, and (2) they can do it as well or better with Jesus as with other figures of the time, why do you not believe them? (This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.)

Thanks again, I look forward to your further comments.

Steven Carr · 11-27-2009, 12:28 PM

It seems Erclati is just not interested in discussion.

He is bringing nothing to the table,and ignoring everything said to him.

ercatli · 11-27-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If experts dis-agree on a matter you must look at the evidence yourself and come to your own conclusion. Jurors do that all the time.

I have done that. Here I am inviting those who disagree to suggest to me where they think I may be wrong.

Quote:

And if you rely on experts, why do you not accept the view of the experts that Jesus was not historical?

Because I only know two peer-recognised scholars (Price and Carrier) who think that Jesus was not historical (though I'm interested to learn of any others), and there are thousands of others who conclude that he was historical. It isn't like a 60-40 split or anything, but the dissenters are a tiny, tiny minority.

So may I ask you, why do you side with the tiny minority?

Kapyong · 11-27-2009, 01:04 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

What do you mean by this? We have the documents, NT and other, we have some limited archaeology. This is more than belief.

No it's not.
It's just books of BELIEFS.

Do you believe the Hindu beliefs about Krishna?
Do you believe the Theosophist beliefs about The Masters?
Do you believe the Scientologist beliefs about Xenu?

So why do you believe beliefs about Jesus?

(And there is NO archeology to support the existance of Jesus. None.)

K.

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

11-27-2009, 12:28 PM	#38
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	It seems Erclati is just not interested in discussion. He is bringing nothing to the table,and ignoring everything said to him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.