Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 05-02-2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

well they do say 300,000 - 400,000 jews attended passover in the temple when this disturbance and crucifixion took place.

this would have generated many different versions of oral tradition on the subject before condensing into a few different versions decades later.

I believe Marvin Meyers puts it like this. Hey! did you hear about the guy that got crucified? I heard he taught this, and did that, ect ect ect, and on and on and on

oral tradition was wide and varied on this event, its no wonder the legend changed based on geographic location of the authors

I'm afraid you have me at a major disadvantage here. I was unaware of how dismal my knowledge of the evidence was. Apparently there is evidence of hundreds of thousands of pilgrims discussing the passover crucifixion of Jesus and I had no idea. Any chance you can help me find this evidence? I tried Google and didn't find anything other than the usual apologist sites full of unsubstantiated assertion. I'd like to see some of the primary evidence on which these assertions are based.

This might be just the thing I've been looking for all these years to convince me to take a side on this issue. Thanks! :thumbs:

by looking at histoical facts we know how many people attended so the almost half a million people in attendance are not up for dispute. What you want to argue 200,000? fine the end reslut would still be the same and that would be a conservative number.

A major disturbance in the temple, if it has any historicty and most scholars claim it does to some point, some argue for a small disturbance. either way it would have caused enough of a commotion people would have known about.

My personal opinion is that for paul to have started writing a decade or so after the events, that there had to be quite the oral legend going around.

Not based on preaching there were thousands of broke traveling teachers

but based on the temple incident standing up against the roman infected corrupt jewish governement, and circumstances of a missing body [thrown in a pit] claimed to be placed ina tomb.

aa5874 · 05-02-2012, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Ironically, the story about Jesus' trial and crucifixion is possibly the most unlikely part of the story (historically speaking) of the whole thing (apart from the walking on water, healing blind people, etc). The absurdity of this trial scene where the Sanhedrin council violates nearly every principle of their assembly by (1) holding a trial at night, (2) spitting on and slapping a defendant (3) finding for a death sentence in a one-day trial or (4) requiring permission from Pilate to execute someone when they by law had that right on their own is enough to leave any reasonable historian skeptical about the validity of the story....

In addition, based on Josephus if the supposed Jesus was regarded as a False prophet then he and his followers would most likely be attacked and killed by Roman soldiers by the order of Pilate WITHOUT any trial.

A false prophet named Theudas had his HEAD CUT OFF and many of his followers killed by Roman soldiers on the order of the Governor WITHOUT a trial . See Antiquities of the Jews 20.5.1.

An Egyptian false prophet had FOUR hundred of his followers killed by Roman soldiers on the order of the Governor WITHOUT a trial. See Antiquities of the Jews 20.8

The trial and crucifixion of Jesus is NOT plausible based on the writings of Josephus. Not even one of Jesus' supposed apostles was arrested and tried with Jesus.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-02-2012, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Basically what was revealed to Paul?

How about what was revealed to Tacitus?

Quote:

We can also take away the round table and the holy grail legends and perhaps reclaim Arthur as a historical leader as well.

When you say "take away," you imply that I'm leaving something in the Gospel accounts. I'm not. I'm saying there's nothing implausible about the Tacitus account.

The Arthur analogy is not really on point because we don't have primary testimony from anyone saying they knew some of Arthur's knights or knew his brother.

The evidence that the Christian movement was preciptated by a real person being crucified in Jerusalem is better than the evidence for a lot of things we accept as historical without any controversy (like, for example, the existence of Honi the Circle Maker)

spin · 05-02-2012, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Basically what was revealed to Paul?

How about what was revealed to Tacitus?

Quote:

We can also take away the round table and the holy grail legends and perhaps reclaim Arthur as a historical leader as well.

When you say "take away," you imply that I'm leaving something in the Gospel accounts. I'm not. I'm saying there's nothing implausible about the Tacitus account.

The only thing implausible about the Tacitus account was that it was written by Tacitus, which is evident even in the fact that Pilate is called a "procurator" when T. knew that procurators didn't get the legal power necessary to administer a province until the time of Claudius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The Arthur analogy is not really on point because we don't have primary testimony from anyone saying they knew some of Arthur's knights or knew his brother.

This is something long discussed here. There is no reason to believe that Paul didn't mean what he usually mean by "brother" in Gal 1:19, ie a believer in the religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The evidence that the Christian movement was preciptated by a real person being crucified in Jerusalem is better than the evidence for a lot of things we accept as historical without any controversy (like, for example, the existence of Honi the Circle Maker)

This is a statement of faith. When you evaluate information looking for evidence you need to factor in the biases of the testimonies. Paul never met Jesus and gives no indications that anyone else ever did, yet he was certain that his savior Jesus was crucified. It was a logical necessity for him. There is no history to be extracted from the tradition. If there were it would be inextricably mixed with non-history such that you'd need to be extremely deft to demonstrate that it was even there.

Adam · 05-02-2012, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Josephus does not actually give a date for the execution of JBap. He relates that event to Antipas' scuffle with Aretas, but does not say how long before the war the execution happened, and it was conventional for people to look for events in the past to explain subsequent events without necessarily being very particular about immediate currency.

I think it also goes without saying that the actual passion narratives in the gospels are wholly fabricated fictions, but that doesn't mean they weren't based on knowledge of an actual crucifixion, it was just a crucifixion that they didn't necessarily know anything about other than "he was crucified." I would not actually expect the followers of a putative HJ to know any details about anything that happened after the arrest, because (according even to the Gospels) they all fled.

It's historically plausible at least, that Mark (or ur-Mark, or whoever) was starting with basically no information but "he was taken away and crucified," which he then enhanced with pictures he made from clouds in the LXX.

Plainly fictional passions are not necessarily proof against a historical crucifixion, just evidence against Mark having any detailed knowledge about it.

Your rejection of the Passion Narrative is unwarranted given that you are acquainted with my position that John Mark was "the disciple known to the High Priest" who was present of the Trial of Jesus. I have shown that the earliest version is the source underlying the Gospel of John. See my Post #276 in
Bart Ehrman : Did Jesus Exist?

And that goes back to my OP in my 628-post thread,

Gospel Eyewitnesses
And John Mark is one of the eyewitnesses not so easily dismissed, included within my Gospel According to the Atheists. See #526, 534, 555, and 561 within that same thread.

Kapyong · 05-02-2012, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

The early epistles, the Didakhe, 1 Clement, Barnabas, G.Thomas, Hermas and various others show no knowledge of the Gospels.

What makes you think this in the case of 1 Clement? It seems to me to be dependent on Matthew.
Joseph

Doesn't seem that way to me.

He never mentions Matthew, or any writings called "Gospels".

He just gives a couple of sayings which he introduces with "remember the words of our lord". Sayings which are NOT quite the same as the Gospels.

But these 2-3 vague quotes always attract footnotes (c.f. Matt X:X) when they are merely vague similarities.

Meanwhile he cites Paul (often by name) about a 100 times and refers to his "wise writings", and he cites the Tanakh about a 100 times refering to it as "scripture" and often giving names.

Details here :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~dal.sah...ementRome.html

K.

Kapyong · 05-02-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

with higher then 90% illiteracy rate within the poor jews in the area, oral tradition was rampant.

But yet it failed dismally to accurately record the Lord's Prayer, allegedly given from Jesus' mouth to the the ears of of his followers.

So now we have many different versions - different versions in the Gospels, and many different variations in the MS themselves.

If ANYTHING would have been accurately recorded by any Oral Tradition, the LP would have been.

K.

aa5874 · 05-02-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The evidence that the Christian movement was preciptated by a real person being crucified in Jerusalem is better than the evidence for a lot of things we accept as historical without any controversy (like, for example, the existence of Honi the Circle Maker)

Your claim is a fallacy.

There is ZERO evidence anywhere in antiquity for a LITTLE known preacher man named Jesus of Nazareth.

Again, HJers have described THEIR Jesus as a LITTLE known preacher but are claiming that a Messiah, a King of the Jews, the Son of God and Creator in the Canon was THEIR little known known preacher.

What a load of BS.

If a source of antiquity claimed Pontius Pilate was an ANGEL in Jerusalem in the 15th year of Tiberius then such a source cannot be used to argue that Pontius Pilate was a Governor or procurator of Judea.

This is basic.

When it is claimed Pontius Pilate was a Governor or Procurator a source must FIRST be identified.

People do NOT claim Pilate was Governor OR Procurator by Guessing. It is because it is FOUND in a source of antiquity.

Where is the source that CLEARLY shows a preacher called Jesus of Nazareth who was LITTLE known, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate???

The historical Jesus is a Myth--Uknown--there was NO source in the first place that Identified a LITTLE known preacher of Nazareth, baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

The HJ character is an INVENTION derived from Imagination.

outhouse · 05-02-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

with higher then 90% illiteracy rate within the poor jews in the area, oral tradition was rampant.

But yet it failed dismally to accurately record the Lord's Prayer, allegedly given from Jesus' mouth to the the ears of of his followers.

So now we have many different versions - different versions in the Gospels, and many different variations in the MS themselves.

If ANYTHING would have been accurately recorded by any Oral Tradition, the LP would have been.

K.

Your statement is rediculous.

no one stated the words we have based on oral tradition were not edited and redacted, forged ect ect ect

plus no one stated cross culture oral tradition would ever remain accurate

No one stated oral traditions would not vary on geographic location, we know it would.

spin · 05-02-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

with higher then 90% illiteracy rate within the poor jews in the area, oral tradition was rampant.

But yet it failed dismally to accurately record the Lord's Prayer, allegedly given from Jesus' mouth to the the ears of of his followers.

So now we have many different versions - different versions in the Gospels, and many different variations in the MS themselves.

If ANYTHING would have been accurately recorded by any Oral Tradition, the LP would have been.

K.

Your statement is rediculous.

no one stated the words we have based on oral tradition were not edited and redacted, forged ect ect ect

plus no one stated cross culture oral tradition would ever remain accurate

No one stated oral traditions would not vary on geographic location, we know it would.

And no-one stated that oral traditions need to have any reality behind them, so a discussion of oral traditions here are at best a red herring.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.