Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 02-27-2007, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

I offer this gedenaken experiment:
if qualified experts in geology and archaelogy and what not come to a scholar consensus that we do have the bonebox (ossuary) of Jesus, and that this Jesus is the same person as the NT

I'd say that such a positive ID was just about impossible. I can't even speculate how it could be done. If it were done, though, I'd certainly have to throw in the towel and admit to Jesus' historicity.

driver8 · 02-27-2007, 07:22 AM

Quote:

2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan, and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.

This makes no sense to me either. Remove the supernatural and there's little of interest left, and little detail. All the miracle healing is gone. The basis for salvation is gone. The cryptic parables are left, excepting those dealing with salvation. The basis for the crucifixion is essentially gone. What is left that makes Jesus worthy of mention?

I've wondered if the biblical Jesus, assuming a historical basis, might be one of the messiah figures Josephus describes but in little detail. Possible candidates:

http://cc.usu.edu/%7Efath6/Nazarenes.htm

Quote:

Josephus recounts that during the Procuratorship of Pontius Pilate there was an anonymous Samaritan who gathered a following whom he led to Mount Gerizim. He promised that he would show his followers "the holy vessels buried at the spot where moses had put them" (Antiquities 18.85-87) on the mountain. Pilate sent a band of calvary and footment who intercepted the procession at the village of Tirabatha, killed many of the followers, and took many others prisoners. Pilate placed a sentance of death on the Samaritan, who had escaped.

During the governorship) of Festus (52-60 CE), there were a number of messiah figures. The best known was an anonymous Egyptian Jew "made himself credible as a prophet and rallied about thirty thousand dupes and took them around through the wilderness to the Mount of Olives. From there he intended to force an entry into Jerusalem, overpower the Roman garrison and become ruler of the citizen body, using his fellow-raiders" (Josephus, Jewish War 2.261-262). Roman troops killed most of his followers, although he himself escaped and was not heard from again. Of the others, Josephus' unfriendly account declared, "Deceivers and impostors, under the pretence of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the multitude to act like madmen, and led them out into the desert under the belief that God would there give them tokens of deliverance. Against them Felix, regarding this as but the preliminary insurrection, sent a body of cavalry and heavy-armed infantry, and put a large number to the sword' (Jewish War 2.258-260).

In 62 CE, another messiah, Jesus the son of Ananias, was arrested. He was lucky in that the Romans decided that he was only mad and released him. In 66 CE, there was another outbreak of messianic revolt. According to Josephus, "What more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it" (Jewish War 6:312-313).

gstafleu · 02-27-2007, 09:37 AM

I don't think it would make much difference in the long run. After all the hubbub had died down, we would still be left with the following points:

The Jesus as described in the bible is clearly a mythical construct, whether there was a "historical core" to him or not.
Paul still describes a spiritual Jesus, whether he got the name from someone real or not, so we would still have the development from a more spiritual to a more earthly religion.
We would still have the development of multiple strands of Christianity in the early days.
Just about everything in the Gospels would still be derived from the OT and other contemporaneous sources.
Jesus still would not have said much that is original.
Where Christianity is concerned, it is the "Christ" bit in "Jesus Christ" that counts, the Jesus bit is secondary; and it is difficult to find a bone box for the Christ bit.

In all the HJ/MJ debates it is usually forgotten that we are talking about a religion here, and in a religion it is the myths that count, not the earthly history. What is important for a Christian is to believe that God sent Jesus to earth, not whether he really did so.

Now in Christianity we have the interesting issue that reality and myth have lost their distinction and people think it is important that myth "really happened." But that this isn't really important becomes immediately clear when you look at something like the Nicene creed: "I believe..." Belief is independent of reality. And that is not just ancient history: how many fervent Christians won't tell you that if you "just believe" things will be OK?

It is interesting to see MJers sometimes fall in the same trap by thinking that the existence of a historical core is of any importance.

Gerard Stafleu

Casper · 02-27-2007, 10:08 AM

Well, if the myth existed first and then a person came along and was considered the embodiement of that myth, then this "evidence" would still mean nothing towards that argument.

This is in fact a seldom mentioned postulate, but i think it bears consideration.

EarlOfLade · 02-27-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If the bones of Jesus Christ, the principle character of the gospels, were found, and this was verified beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100% certainty, but by the preponderance of the evidence, then that would be the end of the Christ Myth theory.

In that case I would immediately become a historicist.

Jake Jones IV

So, how do one get the DNA from God to prove that his is the biblical Jesus?

Casper · 02-27-2007, 11:26 AM

Well, if the mitochondrial evidence indicates Asherah as the mother, how wopuld we know if the father were Yaweh or El? Weren't they brothers?

Toto · 02-27-2007, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by driver8

This makes no sense to me either. Remove the supernatural and there's little of interest left, and little detail. All the miracle healing is gone. The basis for salvation is gone. The cryptic parables are left, excepting those dealing with salvation. The basis for the crucifixion is essentially gone. What is left that makes Jesus worthy of mention?

...

Jefferson took his scissors and cut all of the supernatural stuff out of the gospels, and was left with some Hellenistic moral maxims. Others have done the same and are left with a Great Man who Changed History through the charsimatic imprint he left on his followers by offering up his own life. Others have found some other sort of interesting historical religious leader.

jakejonesiv · 02-27-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfLade

Quote:

If the bones of Jesus Christ, the principle character of the gospels, were found, and this was verified beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100% certainty, but by the preponderance of the evidence, then that would be the end of the Christ Myth theory.

In that case I would immediately become a historicist.

Jake Jones IV

So, how do one get the DNA from God to prove that his is the biblical Jesus?

My remarks didn't address how the bones would be verified (certainly not by God's DNA), but if they were verified.

This demonstrates that the Christ Myth theory (of which I support a variation) is falsifiable, a necessary requirement of all good theories.

Sometimes I think that HJ proponents have lowered the bar so much, that they have made their theory nonfalsifiable, and as such untestable (meaning worthless). The harping on "born of a woman" as if it could verify the existence of any particular historical individual is a case in point.

But, you know, these bones are a way for the historicists to win the argument for their side, a slam dunk win. You would expect them to be all over this. I mean if Romans 1:3 is hot stuff for HJ, His Bones are so much better, right?

You would think so, but instead we see the HJ cadre sweating it out, if not ouright antagonistic. Makes you wonder if, at least for some proponents (not all), HJ arguments are a means to religous end.

JakeJones IV

EarlOfLade · 02-27-2007, 12:24 PM

Jake, no objections from me..

I just wondered how people could claim it is THE Jesus found only based on some bones. And unless we have DNA from both Jesus and God, we can never be sure.

Personally, I think jesus is a myth, just like most of the other persons in the bible along with the events described.

Casper · 02-27-2007, 12:25 PM

Maybe they can match it with the DNA from bloodstains on the turin shroud?

02-27-2007, 09:37 AM	#13
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	I don't think it would make much difference in the long run. After all the hubbub had died down, we would still be left with the following points: The Jesus as described in the bible is clearly a mythical construct, whether there was a "historical core" to him or not. Paul still describes a spiritual Jesus, whether he got the name from someone real or not, so we would still have the development from a more spiritual to a more earthly religion. We would still have the development of multiple strands of Christianity in the early days. Just about everything in the Gospels would still be derived from the OT and other contemporaneous sources. Jesus still would not have said much that is original. Where Christianity is concerned, it is the "Christ" bit in "Jesus Christ" that counts, the Jesus bit is secondary; and it is difficult to find a bone box for the Christ bit. In all the HJ/MJ debates it is usually forgotten that we are talking about a religion here, and in a religion it is the myths that count, not the earthly history. What is important for a Christian is to believe that God sent Jesus to earth, not whether he really did so. Now in Christianity we have the interesting issue that reality and myth have lost their distinction and people think it is important that myth "really happened." But that this isn't really important becomes immediately clear when you look at something like the Nicene creed: "I believe..." Belief is independent of reality. And that is not just ancient history: how many fervent Christians won't tell you that if you "just believe" things will be OK? It is interesting to see MJers sometimes fall in the same trap by thinking that the existence of a historical core is of any importance. Gerard Stafleu

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

02-27-2007, 10:08 AM	#14
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Well, if the myth existed first and then a person came along and was considered the embodiement of that myth, then this "evidence" would still mean nothing towards that argument. This is in fact a seldom mentioned postulate, but i think it bears consideration.

02-27-2007, 11:26 AM	#16
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Well, if the mitochondrial evidence indicates Asherah as the mother, how wopuld we know if the father were Yaweh or El? Weren't they brothers?

02-27-2007, 12:24 PM	#19
EarlOfLade Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Orlando, Fl Posts: 5,310	Jake, no objections from me.. I just wondered how people could claim it is THE Jesus found only based on some bones. And unless we have DNA from both Jesus and God, we can never be sure. Personally, I think jesus is a myth, just like most of the other persons in the bible along with the events described.

02-27-2007, 12:25 PM	#20
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	Maybe they can match it with the DNA from bloodstains on the turin shroud?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.