Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 05-03-2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

moved to new Noah thread I just noticed...

Ill read this bud and respond there so I dont derail this more then I have

TedM · 05-04-2012, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Nice list, but every point in it is easily debatable in my opinion. It makes for cumbersome discourse to go after every point in every post, so I'll just address point #1 for now.

Quote:

1. The surviving tradition claims or strongly implies he was, with no clear record of early contrary views despite quite a few documents having survived or been found.

All it takes is one charismatic person to start convincing people of something and within a decade or so you can have a large base of people talking about it. We have abundant historical evidence of this sort of thing happening. Were there actual physical golden plates in a mountain discovered by Joseph Smith or did he make all that stuff up?

We have clear records of contrary views regarding Joseph Smith's claimed discovery. We have reason to believe there would be contrary views if Jesus was made up and we have an abundance of allusions to OTHER contrary views. The biggest of all--did Jesus even exist--nothing. I addressed this further a few posts back.

Quote:

The "Jesus" figure starts as an ambiguous person (the one in Paul's earliest writings) without specific detail. Nobody argues that he never existed because they don't have a clue where and when he might have existed.

But the Jews of the time would have been very interested in anyone being exalted to superstar--resurrected Messiah status, and would have asked around to get more information.

Quote:

Even so, I've lived in the same town now for 25 years and if someone told me there was an obscure itinerant preacher running around gathering disciples back in '86 in this town I wouldn't be so bold as to call them a liar.

Ok, but it didn't stop there. What if they told you he was the Messiah your culture had been looking for for 600 years, desperately needed, and that he had been raised from the dead after being crucified in front of thousands during Passover? Completely different scenario. Then you might have a motive to ask around, discuss this in the synagogues, etc.. Or what if you were a believer already in a cosmic Messiah and someone started saying your cosmic Messiah really had lived and walked in a town nearby for some 30 years? Wouldn't you ask around?

Yet, we have no record of anyone showing doubts of his existence.

TedM · 05-04-2012, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Now it would surely be either naive or disingenuous to suppose that a divine being created in order to answer theological questions must be non-controversial.

That is true. I under-appreciated that.

Quote:

The evidence is, as it is today, that Jesus changed the way people behaved. The diversity of 'early traditions' is therefore almost certainly tradition that is too late, and is due to the action of people who did not appreciate the change in the way people behaved.

I was thinking the diversity of early traditions, if it existed, came from unanswered questions--for example Paul encountered opposing Christians regarding his Gentile message. That's probably because Jesus didn't have much to say about such matters. And, if early on people didn't reallly understand the meaning of resurrection that might have been because Jesus didn't talk about it. . And so on...

sotto voce · 05-04-2012, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Paul's earliest writings cannot be reasonably dated earlier than AD54, and that's being generous. If the crucifixion occurred in AD33 that's twenty years, not ten as you suggest above.

Secondly, Paul's earliest writings mention absolutely nothing about the betrayal, the temple scene, the trial or even the crucifixion itself.

It all makes sense. After twenty years, that would have been quite unnecessary.

TedM · 05-04-2012, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

[B]
4. The emphasis on a Jewish Jesus-Messiah crucifixion despite being an embarrassment, and the rising from the dead, with little OT basis in prophecy for either.

There is nothing in early Christian literature that leads one to conclude that the crucifixion was viewed as an embarrassment.

Peter's denial is a classic example. The desertion of the disciples. 1 cor: "Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishnessJews saw the ". And just plain old common sense: He died the death of a criminal, suitable for no burial. Of course the believers in resurrection were not embarrassed since then the embarrassment had meaning. But do we have basis for a crucified Messiah PRIOR to Christianity in the OT? Not much. However, Isaiah 53 may be all that was needed, I'll grant. Outside of that there was little basis for a death and a resurrection in order to usher in the kingdom of God. The expectation traditionally was for an exalted King great than David to usher in the kingdom of God when everything would be wonderful.

Quote:

As far as OT prophecy goes, the Jesus character himself tells the reader that everything that is happening, no matter how harsh, is because of prophecies that have to be fulfilled.

We can't know how much of that was retrojected back after the fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

5. The known existence of human Jewish Messiah claimants at the same time in history vs the unknown existence of other non-human/non-earthly Jewish Messiah claimants, in conjunction with the expectation within Judaism for the Messiah to live and rule on EARTH.

True, but the people inventing the Jesus mythus didn't limit themselves to interpreting within Judaic parameters.

But the inventors of Christianity were Jews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

6. The Big Bang beginning of the Christian movement in Judea (the 'superstition' that 'again broke out' not only in Judaea.., Acts, Paul's account of appearances, first Church in Jerusalem). Something happened that was exciting to people and it had to do with belief in a resurrection.

No evidence of starting in Judea. Instead, all evidence points to Asia Minor, Alexandria, and Rome. What happened was non-Jews began adapting Jewish monotheism to their own uses.

Really? Can you give a clear example? I think it originated in Judea for these reasons:

1. Tacitus says so
2. Paul implies it in Gal 1
3. Paul was subservient to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem
4. Paul is portrayed as the first major Gentile ambassador, though Christianity did exist in Rome before he got there.
5. Gospels place Jesus in Galilee. Act places the beginning in Jerusalem.

Big picture for me is that it started in Judea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

7. The relatively obscure and limited location of his ministry, with many seemingly unnecessary details --even 'facts' contrary to expectations from Messianic prophecy, as opposed to a grand ministry in Judea.

All part of the legend. Jesus's ministry is "obscure" because Mark needs it to be obscure.

Or because it was based on history.

aa5874 · 05-04-2012, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

We have clear records of contrary views regarding Joseph Smith's claimed discovery. We have reason to believe there would be contrary views if Jesus was made up and we have an abundance of allusions to OTHER contrary views. The biggest of all--did Jesus even exist--nothing. I addressed this further a few posts back....

Your statement makes no sense. If Jesus and his disciples did NOT exist there would be NO contrary views since NO-ONE would have claimed they existed.

ALL the Existing DATED Texts are from the 2nd century and it is claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of the Holy Ghost.

It is LATE in the 2nd century that we have CONTRARY views of Jesus by Apologetic and Non-apologetic sources.

You are using IMAGINARY evidence and Presumptions for your Jesus, the little known preacher man.

You have NOTHING except forgeries, the Seneca/Paul letters and Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1.

Grog · 05-04-2012, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

While there is value in trying to extract truth from 'small' details and nuances, it may be that the truth is most easily found from looking at the big picture--ie the facts that are most apparent from a historical and human nature standpoint.

For example, if a dozen people testify in court on how a man was murdered, there may be a dozen different descriptions, but few would conclude that the man was in fact NOT murdered. Perhaps, just perhaps, the same -hands off- objectivity can be applied to a HJ when one looks at the most agreed-upon important claims. This is no foolproof approach and one can always argue against any given point.

I succumbed tonight to thinking about this for a couple of hours, and no doubt have overlooked some biggies, but thought I'd throw this out here anyway for discussion. However, I intend to not engage much if any in the discussion. I simply don't have the time. So, you can say 'screw you Ted' right off the bat, or take it for what it is: a thought exercise..

The Top 10 (in order of relative importance--most important listed first):

The big picture: Why Jesus was a historical religious leader who walked the earth in the early 1st century, and was witnessed/known by real people

1. The surviving tradition claims or strongly implies he was, with no clear record of early contrary views despite quite a few documents having survived or been found.

2. The diversity of early traditions are more likely to be applied to a human being with an under-developed theology than a divine being created in order to answer theological questions.

3. The fairly large number of relatively early records with supposed biographical information about the historical Jesus.

4. The emphasis on a Jewish Jesus-Messiah crucifixion despite being an embarrassment, and the rising from the dead, with little OT basis in prophecy for either.

5. The known existence of human Jewish Messiah claimants at the same time in history vs the unknown existence of other non-human/non-earthly Jewish Messiah claimants, in conjunction with the expectation within Judaism for the Messiah to live and rule on EARTH.

6. The Big Bang beginning of the Christian movement in Judea (the 'superstition' that 'again broke out' not only in Judaea.., Acts, Paul's account of appearances, first Church in Jerusalem). Something happened that was exciting to people and it had to do with belief in a resurrection.

7. The relatively obscure and limited location of his ministry, with many seemingly unnecessary details --even 'facts' contrary to expectations from Messianic prophecy, as opposed to a grand ministry in Judea.

8. The baptism roots of the early Jesus.

9. The 'brothers of the Lord' problem. The absence of any surviving tradition of something other than a biological kinship between the very earliest Christian leader in Jerusalem--James--and the later claim of such relationships found in the gospels, Paul, Josephus, and other writings. It is hard to believe that something so profound as the first Christians being called 'brothers of the Lord' would be transformed into something totally different. And, who better to lead the first Church than his own brother or close relative?

10. We should not expect more EXTERNALLY than what we have given the destruction of Jerusalem, the minimal geographical and chronological extent of his ministry, the competing religious leaders/religions, and the specificity and political nature of documents that have survived. The absence of EXTERNAL evidence to support a HJ is sufficiently explained by these issues.

Have fun,
Ted

I don't have time for more, but 1-3 are all disproved by our earliest witness to Christian Jesus-belief, Paul.

Four, prove that it was an embarrassment. #5, I say 'huh?' #6, Does it show a big bang? We have very little in the record that shows such a widespread belief in the 40's through the 60's. It could as easily be an attractive meme that caught on. We see the transitional features in Daniel, Isaiah, Wisdom of Solomon, the DSS, Philo, and finally Paul. Not to mention other early works like the Didache. This looks like an evolution to me that continued on past Paul in more advanced gnostic beliefs. I think all this developed before there was a concrete view of when and where "Jesus Christ" lived. #7, not sure what you mean, but the case has been made that if Jesus were made up, then there had to be an explanation for why no one had heard this story before.

I don't have time of #8-10.

aa5874 · 05-04-2012, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

But the inventors of Christianity were Jews.

Please name the source of antiquity that confirms that Jews invented Christianity.

Again, you are using Imaginary evidence and Presumptions. You have Nothing but Blind Faith in the very Canon that you Discredit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

.... I think it originated in Judea for these reasons:

1. Tacitus says so
2. Paul implies it in Gal 1
3. Paul was subservient to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem
4. Paul is portrayed as the first major Gentile ambassador, though Christianity did exist in Rome before he got there.
5. Gospels place Jesus in Galilee. Act places the beginning in Jerusalem....

Please, don't even mention Paul, here. The supposed corroborative letters that Paul lived in the 1st century turned out to be FORGERIES--the Seneca/Paul letters.

Please, don't mention Tacitus, either--Tacitus NEVER mentioned any character called Jesus and NOT even apologetic sources used Tacitus to argue that Jesus existed. Apologetic sources used the FORGERIES in Antiquities of the Jews so we know that Tacitus' Annals MUST have been Manipulated AFTER the Forgeries in Antiquities.

Please, don't mention the Gospels because they are obvious Myth Fables. Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, God the Creator, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ASCENDED in a cloud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Big picture for me is that it started in Judea.

Your Big Picture is a Big Forgery. Your Picture is in Your Imagination and is NOT found on any 'CANVAS' of antiquity.

ALL DATED Texts about the Jesus stories are from the 2nd century. ALL "Pictures of Jesus" that have been DATED are from the 2nd century

Any 1st century Picture of Jesus is FAKE.

There are NO Pictures of a LITTLE known preacher man in Judea---NONE.

TedM · 05-04-2012, 06:39 AM

aa, I wont respond to your posts. You are too far out there..

TedM · 05-04-2012, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I don't have time for more, but 1-3 are all disproved by our earliest witness to Christian Jesus-belief, Paul.

Four, prove that it was an embarrassment. #5, I say 'huh?' #6, Does it show a big bang? We have very little in the record that shows such a widespread belief in the 40's through the 60's. It could as easily be an attractive meme that caught on. We see the transitional features in Daniel, Isaiah, Wisdom of Solomon, the DSS, Philo, and finally Paul. Not to mention other early works like the Didache. This looks like an evolution to me that continued on past Paul in more advanced gnostic beliefs. I think all this developed before there was a concrete view of when and where "Jesus Christ" lived. #7, not sure what you mean, but the case has been made that if Jesus were made up, then there had to be an explanation for why no one had heard this story before.

I don't have time of #8-10.

Hi Grog. I don't have time either. I've addressed much of what you mention already in a few other posts. Not being smart alec but I cannot allow myself to continue to get up at 4:30 am to do this..

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

05-04-2012, 06:39 AM	#89
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	aa, I wont respond to your posts. You are too far out there..

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.