Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loren Rosson III · 05-13-2006, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Interesting work. Thanks, Loren.

Michael

I'm sure you gnashed your teeth over a lot of it.

You were actually on my list of choices for one of the atheist seats 'til I recalled your position on Jesus' existence, which this exercise obviously assumes.

Magdlyn · 05-13-2006, 04:40 AM

Quote:

an atheist and a nontheist, an evangelical, and a Unitarian, two Jews, two agnostics, two Protestants, two Catholics.

By having 2 each of some groups, and only one from the other groups, you skew your survey.

I would think a Gnostic, such as Stephan A. Hoeller, or one well versed in Gnosticism, such as Elaine Pagels or Timoth Freke, would have belonged on your list.

And why not a couple Muslims? Certainly the Quran contains more references to Jesus than the Torah/Tanakh/Qumran documents do~ seeing as the Torah contains exactly none, and the ones in the Talmud are laughable. Why would a Jew have anything of value to add to a historcial Jesus discussion?

And BTW, everyone in your group was male, which I find shocking.

Quote:

If there were at least some points of consensus a conclave this diverse could reach about Jesus, they would stand a good chance of being objectively true.

On the contrary, with your choice of participants, your biased survey stands no chance of being objectively true.

Magdlyn · 05-13-2006, 04:56 AM

Your conclusion:

Quote:

The upshot is that there was little consensus on what we can say about Jesus. We agree that he was baptized by John;

Except that in the 4th gospel there happens to be no mention made of this embarrassing "fact,"

Quote:

that he was an exorcist-healer;

Spoken to above in re Pauline Epistles,

Quote:

that he was sexually ascetic;

Debatable, in re the crying on the feet, annointing, hair wiping incident, having the beloved disciple reclining on his bosom at the "last supper", and his habit of hanging around drinking with women of indeterminate morality who may not have even been Jewish! This also leaves out tradtions in the gnostic literature, of course.

Quote:

that he was a prophet (whether apocalyptic, messianic, social, or some combination thereof) who expected something rather dramatic to happen soon (i.e. the coming kingdom of God);

Agreed and what does this mistaken prophecy tell us about Jesus's credentials as "Savior"?

Quote:

that he called twelve special disciples;

Whose names are not agreed upon,

Quote:

that he said a lot of memorable things which continue lending themselves to a variety of interpretations (especially the parables);

Or traditional Jewish/Gentile truisms were ascribed to him (there is nothing revolutionary in them),

Quote:

that he engaged in disputes over the Torah, temple, and taxes;

As did many Jews of the day, and in fact for 700 years previous as recorded in the prophets and Deuteronomy

Quote:

that he was killed by the Romans (in collaboration with the Judean elite) in Jerusalem during passover as a political troublemaker;

I don't quibble with that, at least the participants didn't insist he died for our sins!

Quote:

that the synoptic gospels and Paul's letters are good ways of getting to Jesus.

Um, define "good." Good as per Eusebius, a great liar. Did your so-called "experts" ever read him? Did they ever read any non-canonical text?

Quote:

We could perhaps call these basic facts which stand a good chance of being objectively true, since they are agreed to by people

A couple biased people agreeing is not objective in the least.

Quote:

from Christian, Jewish, and secular backgrounds. But these modest results are somewhat disappointing: they simply confirm what most books about the historical Jesus say anyway.

No wonder!!! Modest indeed. I could think of another adjective.

Sorry.

Vorkosigan · 05-13-2006, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loren Rosson III

I'm sure you gnashed your teeth over a lot of it.

You were actually on my list of choices for one of the atheist seats 'til I recalled your position on Jesus' existence, which this exercise obviously assumes.

Thanks for thinking of me, though.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle · 05-13-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Your conclusion:

Quote:

The upshot is that there was little consensus on what we can say about Jesus. We agree that he was baptized by John;

Except that in the 4th gospel there happens to be no mention made of this embarrassing "fact,"

IMHO John 1:29-34 refers obliquely to the Spirit descending upon Jesus when baptized by John.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer · 05-13-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The question here isn't whether Jesus existed - only whether he was known to perform exorcisms and healings. The only evidence of those exorcisms and healings is in the gospels, written much later than Jesus' presumed existence, but not in Paul's letters. How can something with so little evidential support be so certain?

Paul is very scant on biographical details anyway. The reasoning behind this is that the gospels contain traditions about what Jesus said/did. That he was thought to be a shaman/magician/healer is well attested in the gospels and beyond. But again, this is still something that may change, especially for me, where this was a weak area. Hopefully the discussion will elucidate several findings.

Magdlyn · 05-13-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Paul is very scant on biographical details anyway. The reasoning behind this is that the gospels contain traditions about what Jesus said/did.

So, therefore Paul didn't need to bother? but that is put to the lie by the fact that Paul wrote decades before the evangelists did.

Quote:

That he was thought to be a shaman/magician/healer is well attested in the gospels and beyond. But again, this is still something that may change, especially for me, where this was a weak area.

You mean, you will change your mind about why Paul provides no biography of Jesus?

Magdlyn · 05-13-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IMHO John 1:29-34 refers obliquely to the Spirit descending upon Jesus when baptized by John.

Andrew Criddle

Which obliqueness kind of proves my point as to the embarrassment factor. Later high Christologists (such as the author of GJohn) were very uncomfortable with much of the Markan views of Jesus as a human on a divine mission, rather than as a divinity on a salvific mission, and made a point of downplaying his human imperfections. These changes to the Jesus story are laid out in detail in the book, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, by Robert Price. I think a read of that book will tell you much more the possibility of a historic Jesus than the consensus of the believers in this poll.

Chris Weimer · 05-13-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

So, therefore Paul didn't need to bother? but that is put to the lie by the fact that Paul wrote decades before the evangelists did.

Non sequitur. Paul's letters are epistulary sermons - a genre that doesn't include biography. He himself admits that he didn't receive his gospel from men, but from "divine revelation". How would you expect him to know the details of Jesus' life if he admits he didn't care for it?

We see the exact same thing in later epistles as well. Epistles and gospels are two totally different things. Both Polycarp and Ignatius clearly post-date Mark, yet contain none of the biographical information that it contained.

Quote:

You mean, you will change your mind about why Paul provides no biography of Jesus?

No, I may change my mind on Jesus being a healer.

Loren Rosson III · 05-13-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

...I think a read of that book will tell you much more the possibility of a historic Jesus than the consensus of the believers in this poll.

Only five of the twelve conclave participants are Christian, so I'm unclear as to what you mean by "the believers in this poll".

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.