Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Topher · 06-12-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If the gospel stories were basically true, Jesus would have been an important person. (If he weren't, it's hard to explain why Pilate would have taken him seriously enought to bother with crucifying him.)

In Remsberg's time, arguing that Jesus was merely human, or that the gospel stories were based on a mere human, was considered to be a highly radical stance, one that branded him as an irreligious heretic.

I see arguments today, the unstated foundation of which is the "triumph" of the later church, hence the greatness of Jesus (Christ!). But I don't think Jesus was an important person ca. 30 CE. And I suspect that Jesus' crucifixion may have been no more than the incidental result of Pilate's "orders of the day," which had to do with riot control during Passover in an overcrowded Jerusalem.

That would be 'Jesus' and not 'Jesus Christ'. You can't say Jesus the Christ was an insignificant person.

rlogan · 06-13-2008, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If the gospel stories were basically true, Jesus would have been an important person. (If he weren't, it's hard to explain why Pilate would have taken him seriously enought to bother with crucifying him.)

In Remsberg's time, arguing that Jesus was merely human, or that the gospel stories were based on a mere human, was considered to be a highly radical stance, one that branded him as an irreligious heretic.

I see arguments today, the unstated foundation of which is the "triumph" of the later church, hence the greatness of Jesus (Christ!). But I don't think Jesus was an important person ca. 30 CE. And I suspect that Jesus' crucifixion may have been no more than the incidental result of Pilate's "orders of the day," which had to do with riot control during Passover in an overcrowded Jerusalem.

There is a tendency to wish into existence the "just so" version of the "historical jesus".

The "historical" Jesus is whatever we can create, or is left after removing everything we feel is logically falsified.

He would have been taken notice of by numerous historians had he performed the scale of miracles in the new testament. Therefore he did not do such things. He could not have had a following that gathered crowds as large as whole cities of the time or people would have noticed. And so forth down the line.

Until we are left with nobody important. In fact, you can't even point to a single person as a potential progenitor because there are just far too many of such "historical Jesus'".

One of the real problems with this approach is that we know very well where almost every single detail abut Jesus came from: the Hebrew Bible. The source is scripture, not a person.

Since scripture is the source of the legend and not a person, then creating a "just so" story about a "historical jesus" that is sort of everything left over after you remove what was actually written about him -

its a pretty bizarre methodology.

Solitary Man · 06-13-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

its a pretty bizarre methodology.

It's also a strawman. But that hasn't stopped you from years of engaging in fallacious arguments and knocking down the only thing you're able to - that which you yourself have created.

aa5874 · 06-14-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

I see arguments today, the unstated foundation of which is the "triumph" of the later church, hence the greatness of Jesus (Christ!). But I don't think Jesus was an important person ca. 30 CE. And I suspect that Jesus' crucifixion may have been no more than the incidental result of Pilate's "orders of the day," which had to do with riot control during Passover in an overcrowded Jerusalem.

There is a tendency to wish into existence the "just so" version of the "historical jesus".

The "historical" Jesus is whatever we can create, or is left after removing everything we feel is logically falsified.

He would have been taken notice of by numerous historians had he performed the scale of miracles in the new testament. Therefore he did not do such things. He could not have had a following that gathered crowds as large as whole cities of the time or people would have noticed. And so forth down the line.

Until we are left with nobody important. In fact, you can't even point to a single person as a potential progenitor because there are just far too many of such "historical Jesus'".

One of the real problems with this approach is that we know very well where almost every single detail abut Jesus came from: the Hebrew Bible. The source is scripture, not a person.

Since scripture is the source of the legend and not a person, then creating a "just so" story about a "historical jesus" that is sort of everything left over after you remove what was actually written about him -

its a pretty bizarre methodology.

I agree with your post.

To produce an HJ, pretty bizarre methodolgy is needed.

Up to now, HJers can't seem to agree on who this HJ was. By now, I would have thought they would have known if HJ was an Egyptian or a Samaritan.

mens_sana · 06-14-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Up to now, HJers can't seem to agree on who this HJ was. By now, I would have thought they would have known if HJ was an Egyptian or a Samaritan.

You can't be serious — but, at the same time, you didn't use a clarifying smilie.

aa5874 · 06-14-2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Up to now, HJers can't seem to agree on who this HJ was. By now, I would have thought they would have known if HJ was an Egyptian or a Samaritan.

You can't be serious — but, at the same time, you didn't use a clarifying smilie.

I am always serious.

The HJ is just a matter of faith. The human only Jesus must be assembled without facts or any external non-apologetic corroboration.

Roger Pearse · 06-14-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topher

That would be 'Jesus' and not 'Jesus Christ'. You can't say Jesus the Christ was an insignificant person.

Jesus Christ was not an important man in his own time, nor for a century and a half afterwards.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Minimalist · 06-14-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

In Remsberg's time, arguing that Jesus was merely human, or that the gospel stories were based on a mere human, was considered to be a highly radical stance, one that branded him as an irreligious heretic.

Remsberg sounds like my kind of guy!

Topher · 06-14-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topher

That would be 'Jesus' and not 'Jesus Christ'. You can't say Jesus the Christ was an insignificant person.

Jesus Christ was not an important man in his own time, nor for a century and a half afterwards.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

And this claim is just not biblical! You cannot hold the biblical account of Jesus to be historical AND that no one noticed him.

If the gospels are historical, then people WOULD have noticed.

Furthermore, writers of the time were not just interested in significant people.

thedistillers · 06-14-2008, 03:20 PM

Is Roger Pearse, a Christian according his profile, telling us the Son of God was unimportant.

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

06-14-2008, 03:20 PM	#30
thedistillers Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 586	Is Roger Pearse, a Christian according his profile, telling us the Son of God was unimportant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.