Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gnosis92 · 09-06-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Yeah, I could do that. What is your point?

do you have a rationally defensible criteria, which academic professional historians should adopt, to determine what *unsubstantiated* and *uncorroborated* writings from antiquity, especially in the first century judea/syria-palestine, are historical, and which historical fiction?

josephus spoke of the mass suicide at massadda, and his own capture (all his companions committed suicide)
historical or fiction?

Doug Shaver · 09-07-2006, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

do you have a rationally defensible criteria, which academic professional historians should adopt

I believe my criteria are rationally defensible.

They were already adopted by academic professional historians long before I started looking into these matters.

gnosis92 · 09-08-2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I believe my criteria are rationally defensible.

They were already adopted by academic professional historians long before I started looking into these matters.

what are they? Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Dominic Crossan, Burton Mack have described historical criteria, and accept the historicity of Jesus, and explain why the synoptic gospels are historical, whereas John's Gospel are unlikely to be historical, which I've already described.

one poster here
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...07#post3739707

describes why he regards mark as historically credible and i agree with his reasons.

Doug Shaver · 09-10-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Dominic Crossan, Burton Mack have described historical criteria, and accept the historicity of Jesus, and explain why the synoptic gospels are historical, whereas John's Gospel are unlikely to be historical, which I've already described.

Different people can apply the same criteria to the same evidence and reach different conclusions, depending partly on their presuppositions. It is very easy to see some vestiges of history in the synoptic gospels if you begin your analysis with an assumption that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

one poster here
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...07#post3739707

describes why he regards mark as historically credible and i agree with his reasons.

You seem to have made a mistake in your link. When I clicked on it, I came to a post containing only the following:

Quote:

Let's assume for sake of argument that Jesus was historical, but was a minor figure. Why couldn't he have lived in Paul's remote past?

I don't get exactly what your asking. Oh, if you'd like to IM me about this, my IM is Fathermithras.

gnosis92 · 09-11-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I have read on Joan of Arc and consider her profile close to what I picture HJ to have been (she dominated her following emotionally, HJ intellectually). Rasputin I don't know that well - he certainly had enormous vitality about him and he probably was very much the hypnotizing psychic healer we was reputed to be. But I think of characters like Rasputin or Wilhelm Reich more in terms of the apostolic successors to HJ than HJ-type himself.
my academic background is economics, computer science. Professionally I am an IT project manager. Good in math but always had a great interest in humanities, philosophy, history, psychology; read voraciously since my teens. No concern for Jesus or Buddha until mid-thirties, when, as Earl Doherty puts it, the blinding light struck [someone] off his donkey. Refused to be medicated, started to get into mysticism and long distance running. Married, separated, father two kids. If the 1984 prognosis of the medical profession is correct, by now I must be either dead or completely insane.

I think Elaine Pagels has that right.

Jiri

Hello Jiri,

Not all the sayings attributed to Jesus in GOT can be described as gnostic, some seem pretty mundane observations.

Do you think that the gospel of John, Jesus says "I and the Father are One, I am in the Father and the Father is in me, these are not my words but the wrods of the Father doing his work"? represent the words of HJ? The Jesus Seminar declared these words "black" (as opposed to Red, Pink, or Gray) but I figure if Jesus was a mystic, he probably did say such things.

I am kinda curious as to your views on mysticism since mystical experience seems to contradict materialist naturalistic atheistic science.

Solo · 09-13-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Hello Jiri,

Not all the sayings attributed to Jesus in GOT can be described as gnostic, some seem pretty mundane observations.

True. As I said, I believe GT is a mixed bag of traditional sayings HJ and revelations to the Thomasian mystics they considered genuinely delivered from Jesus post-mortem by the Spirit. I have tried to figure out whether the sequencing of the logia had a particular significance, but became convinced that they were just laid down without any order. They are self-contained units.

Quote:

Do you think that the gospel of John, Jesus says "I and the Father are One, I am in the Father and the Father is in me, these are not my words but the wrods of the Father doing his work"? represent the words of HJ?

No, I don't. I think this is Johannine para-gnostic Hellenic theology of early 2nd century.

Quote:

I am kinda curious as to your views on mysticism since mystical experience seems to contradict materialist naturalistic atheistic science.

I have no opinion on mysticism. When I burned out as a computer programmer, I was given two choices: think of myself as a mystic, or think of myself as certified. I took the bounty and ran.

As for mystical experience contradicting atheistic science, it's not that at all: it's more like you either can go astro-travel, or you can't, so you go to a planetarium.

Jiri

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.