Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 02-10-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

As to the OP - so if we are to assume that the stories of miracles are lies or mistakes and not real, then why would the romans have taken so much interest in him as to post guards at his grave etc?Or maybe that too was made up?

It is only included in one version of the story, has internal logic problems (eg magical sleep, soldiers confessing to a crime punishable by death IIUC) has the explicit purpose of denying charges of body theft so, yes, that appears to be a very reasonable conclusion.

Quote:

Was the story o his legs not being broken made up too?

It is told specifically to claim fulfillment of what the author believed to be a prophecy about Jesus so, yes, that appears to be a very reasonable conclusion.

Quote:

Was the story of him being put in a grave made up too?

The character in the story who provides the grave comes out of nowhere as a secret supporter for no other apparent purpose in the story (ie very deus ex machina) so, yes, that appears to be a very reasonable conclusion.

Quote:

It is an impossible slippery slide you are on here with no ground to stand on.

They all appear to be very reasonable conclusions. Your complaint seems to have no merit.

Transient · 02-10-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

As to the OP - so if we are to assume that the stories of miracles are lies or mistakes and not real, then why would the romans have taken so much interest in him as to post guards at his grave etc?Or maybe that too was made up?

It is only included in one version of the story, has internal logic problems (eg magical sleep, soldiers confessing to a crime punishable by death IIUC) has the explicit purpose of denying charges of body theft so, yes, that appears to be a very reasonable conclusion.

It is told specifically to claim fulfillment of what the author believed to be a prophecy about Jesus so, yes, that appears to be a very reasonable conclusion.

The character in the story who provides the grave comes out of nowhere as a secret supporter for no other apparent purpose in the story (ie very deus ex machina) so, yes, that appears to be a very reasonable conclusion.

Quote:

It is an impossible slippery slide you are on here with no ground to stand on.

They all appear to be very reasonable conclusions. Your complaint seems to have no merit.

I do not follow your logic.
I am asking the OP what we are to accept for her discussion purposes since we are to reject the supernatural elements.
It seems as tho you consider the above elements as fiction.
That is fine with me - what IS left then - the OP must state what is left to construct something with.
I made no complaint - I applying logic and asking for more info from the OP.
Your comments actually support what I am saying - that it is a slippery slope and the OP must stabilize that slope by stating what is to be rejected as fiction.

Joan of Bark · 02-10-2009, 05:17 PM

Oh, Transient, I keep answering your question and you keep ignoring my answer.

We always reject the supernatural element first. (If you don't do that, then you're on the wrong discussion board). Then we ask the question: is what remains reasonable vis-a-vis the society it describes? Does it fit with what we know of history? The gospels mention Pilate, whom we know existed at that time in Palestine. Okay, so what else does it say? Is it possible that the crucifixion took place and the tomb found empty? (Both of which are theoretically possible). My OP assumes this is true (which doesn't mean it must be true -- this is merely an assumption for the discussion). Now, how do we explain it without resorting to the supernatural? Is it possible for the Romans to be fooled? Could a still-living Jesus been made to appear dead? Does this or that element fit with what we know as historically possible or reasonable? There are mythicists here who have no trouble discussing these points without resorting to "Jesus was a myth, so it's all meaningless anyway!"

If we take the attitude that: "once we reject one element as fiction, then we have to reject it all" we may as well dissolve this forum!

Transient · 02-10-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Oh, Transient, I keep answering your question and you keep ignoring my answer.

We always reject the supernatural element first. (If you don't do that, then you're on the wrong discussion board). Then we ask the question: is what remains reasonable vis-a-vis the society it describes? Does it fit with what we know of history? The gospels mention Pilate, whom we know existed at that time in Palestine. Okay, so what else does it say? Is it possible that the crucifixion took place and the tomb found empty? (Both of which are theoretically possible). My OP assumes this is true (which doesn't mean it must be true -- this is merely an assumption for the discussion). Now, how do we explain it without resorting to the supernatural? Is it possible for the Romans to be fooled? Could a still-living Jesus been made to appear dead? Does this or that element fit with what we know as historically possible or reasonable? There are mythicists here who have no trouble discussing these points without resorting to "Jesus was a myth, so it's all meaningless anyway!"

If we take the attitude that: "once we reject one element as fiction, then we have to reject it all" we may as well dissolve this forum!

"I keep ignoring your answer"???
Really?
Rubbish!
You have not stated what you accept as true and what you reject as fiction before we even start considering your question.
You reject the supernatural events - fine.
Do you accept the rest of the stories as true, the sayings etc?
This is important as it affects the events surrounding the so-called crucifiction.
If he didn't do any miracles and didn't say anything of note then why would the romans take much interest in him, why would they post guards etc.
Are to accept the story of a burial tomb, crucifiction, etc?
You haven't even tried to address my queries.
And for the record I am not a mythicist, and agnostic, an athiest, a christian, an historicist etc etc etc.
I refuse to accept dumb labels.
I am someone who is wasting their time on the impossible task of trying to find out what the hell really happened 2000 years ago.

Joan of Bark · 02-10-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

You have not stated what you accept as true and what you reject as fiction before we even start considering your question.
You reject the supernatural events - fine.
Do you accept the rest of the stories as true, the sayings etc?

I accept all the theoretical possibilities as being just that ... possible!

There isn't enough space on this or any other thread for me to state which of every single passage in the gospels I believe to be true or false -- and frankly, it's not necessary. If you want to claim that passage 6A in gMark contradicts the empty tomb, then we can examine that passage. I might then claim that I believe that passage to be an interpolation by later Christians to support some theological agenda. Or I might claim you are misinterpreting the passage, and use passage 8F in gLuke to support my claim. Or I might point out what archaelogical evidence indicates. Or I might admit your argument is a good one and accept your conclusion. This is what history is all about! (and I did major in history for two years, in which time I wrote enough essays to understand the process).

(And BTW, mathematics is about proof, while history is about evidence, possibilities and probabilities. I'm not about to claim that anything I write is absolute evidence of anything).

In the case of the OP, to repeat myself yet again, we are considering the possibility that the tomb was empty. Is there any possibility for this being true??? I'm not accepting or rejecting it at this point, but merely throwing it out for speculation. If you think there is no possibility for it being true, then you use other Biblical passages or your knowledge of history to reject it, eg. "The Romans would never have allowed a living man to be taken down from the cross."

Quote:

And for the record I am not a mythicist, and agnostic, an athiest, a christian, an historicist etc etc etc.
I refuse to accept dumb labels.

In your personal profile, you categorize yourself under Basic Beliefs as 'agnostic'. But I shouldn't have assumed you were a mythicist. What I was trying to say is that even those who disbelieve much of the gospels are still able to have a discussion about possibilities.

Joan of Bark · 02-10-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Lets see, we have the Biblical Jesus that performed mighty miracles and attracted thousands of believers, shook up the Jewish religious establishment to its roots, and whose fame spread far and wide, yet strangely left no other mark upon history other than a few outlandish stories from unknown authors produced at unknown dates, that cannot be corroborated by any external sources. These are the facts that raise the question of his actual existence.

Agreed, but that's not the subject of this thread. (And I should point out that just because I believe in an HJ does not mean I believe all the stories about Him. Just for the record, I don't believe His fame spread far and wide in His lifetime. And I don't believe all the stories about Socrates, but I still believe he existed.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Now, you take this story-book character who is already of doubtful reality and start removing everything supernatural from the stories,
The question is, where do you stop? When you pare away all of the supernatural situations, scenarios, and miracle stories, it is also necessary to to pare away with them all of that additional dialog that was engendered by, and associated with the performance of those supernatural situations and miracles, and also any related public and private reactions that professedly arose out of people having any participation in, knowledge of, or awareness of these situations and miracles.

The supernatural element constitutes a minority of the Gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You "are rejecting the supernatural parts of the NT"? and pray tell, who extended to you that license?

The name of this forum! which is Biblical Criticism and History. History, by definition, rejects the supernatural. If you want to discuss the supernatural, you go to a board and forum where the supernatural is taken as a possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The Gospels say what The Gospels say, whether you like what they say or not, and what they DO say, discredits your attempts at making them into something they were not, and that they are not, or to say something that they do not.
Your arguments that the NT stories mention some real places and some real world historical personages is hardly worth addressing, as that approach has been discredited thousands of times within these forums.

And yet, this forum still exists. Why hasn't it been shut down on the basis of: it's all rubbish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You can dig up every square foot of Jerusalem and Israel and you still will never find a shred of indisputable evidence for the existence of a "real" Jesus, simply because there never was any such person, nor any individual anywhere similar to that fictional character that is described in the NT.
Rejecting the Jesus the NT described, you are stuck with creating your own fully imaginary Jesus, one for which you can provide no evidence at all.

So you're an 'all or nothing' kind of guy, huh? Either you reject everything, or you accept everything. See my post on the Spanish Armada or The Iliad for my response to such thinking.

Transient · 02-10-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

You have not stated what you accept as true and what you reject as fiction before we even start considering your question.
You reject the supernatural events - fine.
Do you accept the rest of the stories as true, the sayings etc?

I accept all the theoretical possibilities as being just that ... possible!

There isn't enough space on this or any other thread for me to state which of every single passage in the gospels I believe to be true or false -- and frankly, it's not necessary. If you want to claim that passage 6A in gMark contradicts the empty tomb, then we can examine that passage. I might then claim that I believe that passage to be an interpolation by later Christians to support some theological agenda. Or I might claim you are misinterpreting the passage, and use passage 8F in gLuke to support my claim. Or I might point out what archaelogical evidence indicates. Or I might admit your argument is a good one and accept your conclusion. This is what history is all about! (and I did major in history for two years, in which time I wrote enough essays to understand the process).

(And BTW, mathematics is about proof, while history is about evidence, possibilities and probabilities. I'm not about to claim that anything I write is absolute evidence of anything).

In the case of the OP, to repeat myself yet again, we are considering the possibility that the tomb was empty. Is there any possibility for this being true??? I'm not accepting or rejecting it at this point, but merely throwing it out for speculation. If you think there is no possibility for it being true, then you use other Biblical passages or your knowledge of history to reject it, eg. "The Romans would never have allowed a living man to be taken down from the cross."

Quote:

And for the record I am not a mythicist, and agnostic, an athiest, a christian, an historicist etc etc etc.
I refuse to accept dumb labels.

In your personal profile, you categorize yourself under Basic Beliefs as 'agnostic'. But I shouldn't have assumed you were a mythicist. What I was trying to say is that even those who disbelieve much of the gospels are still able to have a discussion about possibilities.

Ok so, reading between the lines I can gather that for the purposes of this thread we are to accept that "Jesus" was laid in a tomb.
Is that correct?
Are we to accept the various statements of what was supposed to have happened while he was on the cross? - his words, the actions of the soldiers etc?
It is necessary to know this because it is clear that you do not trust the gospel writers and consider much of what they write to be fiction.
You have accepted, for this discussion, that he was laid in a tomb - I can deduce that much.
You do not seem to accept that he rose from the dead (supernatural). Do you accept the so-called testimony of those that are supposed to have gone to see the tomb?
If all bets are off and we can think up any possibility as long as we keep some guy called "Jesus" (Yeshua or whatever) then we could propose that he was crucified for causing some major disturbance and chucked in a common grave long after he had died on the cross and the body was never sighted again by anyone.

spamandham · 02-10-2009, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

The name of this forum! which is Biblical Criticism and History. History, by definition, rejects the supernatural.

More importantly, history involves proper methodology. Speculation in a vacuum does not fit anywhere within the methodology of history.

Sheshbazzar · 02-10-2009, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Lets see, we have the Biblical Jesus that performed mighty miracles and attracted thousands of believers, shook up the Jewish religious establishment to its roots, and whose fame spread far and wide, yet strangely left no other mark upon history other than a few outlandish stories from unknown authors produced at unknown dates, that cannot be corroborated by any external sources. These are the facts that raise the question of his actual existence.

Agreed, but that's not the subject of this thread. (And I should point out that just because I believe in an HJ does not mean I believe all the stories about Him. Just for the record, I don't believe His fame spread far and wide in His lifetime. And I don't believe all the stories about Socrates, but I still believe he existed.)

People "believe" a lot of nonsense, what you believe or what you don't believe has no relevance here.
You want to posit a "historical Jesus", then it is up to you to provide the evidence that there was a "historical Jesus".
The Bible does not provide that evidence, and omitting consideration of, or editing out large portions of the Bible's texts, adds nothing to your fundamental lack of evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Now, you take this story-book character who is already of doubtful reality and start removing everything supernatural from the stories,
The question is, where do you stop? When you pare away all of the supernatural situations, scenarios, and miracle stories, it is also necessary to to pare away with them all of that additional dialog that was engendered by, and associated with the performance of those supernatural situations and miracles, and also any related public and private reactions that professedly arose out of people having any participation in, knowledge of, or awareness of these situations and miracles.
Now your narrative has such huge gaps in it (say good-bye to around half of the entire Gospel texts) that it has utterly lost its narrative structure, and the protagonist has been stripped of even more of his already far too sparse modicum of identity.

The supernatural element constitutes a minority of the Gospels.

Even if it were a minority, which thing I -do not- concede, the Gospels simply would not exist without the supernatural element. Their entire contents rests on the premise of the existence of the supernatural, and a person that did supernatural acts.
Take that away and you have a nobody that did nothing, for no one to report. Without all that went before, there is no longer any reason to accept, or to discuss anything that supposedly happened at the crucifixion or tomb.

It is impossible for others to decide for you, how much of the text you are willing to eliminate, to twist it to your personal interpretations.
Our texts read as they read, and their veracity, or lack of it, is dependent on the entire texts, not on extracted portions.
However I will be perfectly willing to discuss your version of the texts when you actually produce them.
No one here is interested in playing games with you for the next thousand plus posts while you decide which verses it is that you want to leave out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You "are rejecting the supernatural parts of the NT"? and pray tell, who extended to you that license?

The name of this forum! which is Biblical Criticism and History. History, by definition, rejects the supernatural. If you want to discuss the supernatural, you go to a board and forum where the supernatural is taken as a possibility.

"Biblical Criticism", by definition, includes discussion of the supernatural claims within the texts of the Bible, This IS the board and the proper forum for discussion of the Biblical texts supernatural claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The New Testement sans its supernatural parts, is no longer The New Testement, the very basis of the NT is its supernatural parts, its stories and claims.
The Gospels say what The Gospels say, whether you like what they say or not, and what they DO say, discredits your attempts at making them into something they were not, and that they are not, or to say something that they do not.
Your arguments that the NT stories mention some real places and some real world historical personages is hardly worth addressing, as that approach has been discredited thousands of times within these forums.

And yet, this forum still exists. Why hasn't it been shut down on the basis of: it's all rubbish.

I am not the one here attempting to remove large portions of the text under a pretext that they are rubbish.
The only way to deal honestly with the texts, is to deal with the entire contents of intact texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You can dig up every square foot of Jerusalem and Israel and you still will never find a shred of indisputable evidence for the existence of a "real" Jesus, simply because there never was any such person, nor any individual anywhere similar to that fictional character that is described in the NT.
Rejecting the Jesus the NT described, you are stuck with creating your own fully imaginary Jesus, one for which you can provide no evidence at all.

So you're an 'all or nothing' kind of guy, huh? Either you reject everything, or you accept everything. See my post on the Spanish Armada or The Iliad for my response to such thinking.

This is The Bible Criticism & History Forum, I really do not need to get involved in your inept characterizations of non-Biblical books and events.

Amaleq13 · 02-11-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

It seems as tho you consider the above elements as fiction.

I said that appears to be a reasonable conclusion about them for the reasons given.

Quote:

Your comments actually support what I am saying - that it is a slippery slope...

No, it does not. There is no "slippery slope" but there is a great deal of problematic evidence.

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

02-10-2009, 05:17 PM	#83
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Oh, Transient, I keep answering your question and you keep ignoring my answer. We always reject the supernatural element first. (If you don't do that, then you're on the wrong discussion board). Then we ask the question: is what remains reasonable vis-a-vis the society it describes? Does it fit with what we know of history? The gospels mention Pilate, whom we know existed at that time in Palestine. Okay, so what else does it say? Is it possible that the crucifixion took place and the tomb found empty? (Both of which are theoretically possible). My OP assumes this is true (which doesn't mean it must be true -- this is merely an assumption for the discussion). Now, how do we explain it without resorting to the supernatural? Is it possible for the Romans to be fooled? Could a still-living Jesus been made to appear dead? Does this or that element fit with what we know as historically possible or reasonable? There are mythicists here who have no trouble discussing these points without resorting to "Jesus was a myth, so it's all meaningless anyway!" If we take the attitude that: "once we reject one element as fiction, then we have to reject it all" we may as well dissolve this forum!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.