Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 08-27-2011, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

The Apostles surely did believe Jesus to be a man and not just a spiritual god.

How do you know that?

stephan huller · 08-27-2011, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera
The Apostles surely did believe Jesus to be a man and not just a spiritual god.

Marcion certainly did not. I see no evidence that Clement of Alexandria identified 'Jesus' (not Christ) as a human of flesh and blood. That's the future of this debate - to recognize that Jesus and Christ were two different individuals.

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Actually, my last line reads: "For those interested in searching for early christian origins, it is historical people and events that must take priority over assumptions re the gospel JC story".

Yes. I knew that. We must have crossed wires or something. I'm not sure I see the distinction. It's not that I'm diagreeing with your statement, which seems very reasonable indeed. I'm more wondering at what point we decide that some figure or other has 'sufficient' historical evidence.

And (more to the point) when the evidence is 'poor', what to do?

No evidence = don't get waylaid with assumptions. Evidence? Coins are a big deal. Which does tie the evidence down to important historical figures.

Quote:

I think this is more relevant to minor figures, obviously, of which there are a host, and I think I'm right in saying that Josephus, for example, contains several which are not referenced anywhere else. What do we do with those figures? John the Baptist (also in the NT of course), and some of the other minor prophet types, Theudas and that Egyptian guy, for example?

No historical evidence = don't get waylaid with assumptions....

Keep in mind that Josephus is not simply a historian - Josephus is a prophetic historian - with all the baggage that such a designation implies.

Quote:

I think what is confusing me is that your statement above seems to be contradicted by you making some sort of conclusion here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

There still was NO HISTORICAL JESUS as a specific individual!

Agreed. “NO HISTORICAL JESUS” as a specific individual.

Maybe I have misinterpeted you, but I also recall (perhaps inaccurately) that you might have previously mentioned subscribing to some sort of 'two merged historical figures' thesis for Jesus, and I'm not sure how you would do that in tandem with the line at the top of this post.

I don't quite get what point you are making here. My position on the gospel JC is that this figure is pseudo-historical and has primarily been created from the life stories of two historical figures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why not get out a history book. Look up Jewish history from the time of Herod the Great, 40 b.c. made king in Rome, to the end of Pilate's rule - normally given as 36 c.e. Keep a look out for the death of Antigonus, the last king and high priest of the Jews. He was bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded in 37 b.c. Keep a look out for Philip the Tetrarch - who ruled from the death of Herod the Great until, according to present copies of Josephus, to the 20th year of Tiberius, in 33/34 c.e. Keep in mind the gospel JC story that JC had disciples from Bethsaida - which Philip renamed Bethsaida Julius. Keep in mind that the disciples asked JC if he was the messiah - in the territory of Philip, around Casearea Philippi. Keep in mind that Philip was also a travelling man - moving around his territory, like JC, with a group of his chosen friends. Keep in mind that Philip dies (Josephus again) around 33/34 ce - as the gospel JC is crucified, after a 3 year ministry, (gJohn) around 33 c.e. Keep in mind that the crucifixion of JC in 33 c.e. is 70 years from the crucifixion, flogging and beheading of Antigonus in 37 b.c. Keep in mind that gLuke 3:1 is dealing with a 70 year period - from Lysanias of Abilene (40 b.c.) to the 15th year of Tiberius (29/30 c.e.) Keep in mind that the gospel JC is a multi-talented figure - everything from revolutionary man to cynic sage. Keep in mind that Antigonus was a man of war and Philip was a man of peace.

Sorry. I'm not sure what I might be supposed to conclude from this.

Read a history book.....

aa5874 · 08-27-2011, 09:02 AM

It is most mind boggling that people here IGNORE the Pauline writings and make erroneous claims based on SILENCE.

We have Galatians 1.

The Pauline writings show that "Paul" did NOT consider that Jesus was a MAN and did NOT get his gospel from a MAN.

Why are we WASTING TIME day after day?

We have the evidence that the Pauline Jesus was a MYTH character in the Pauline writings.

Galatians 1

Quote:

1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead........But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.....

Please, let us NOT waste any more time.

The WRITTEN evidence that the Pauline Jesus is a MYTH character, "God in the Flesh", has been KNOWN for at least 1600 years.

Plus, it was HERETICAL for Jesus Christ to have been considered to have been a MAN in the Canon of the Church.

1. A corruptible man has NO ability to FORGIVE the sins of ALL mankind.

2. A man cannot RESURRECT on the THIRD day.

The claim that the Pauline Jesus in the NT Canon was a man is MOST erroneous and simply ridiculous based on the very Pauline writings.

TedM · 08-27-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

2. The historical Jesus was widely known among those who knew Paul's theology within 20 years of Paul's death.

From what fact, if any, do you infer that?

I may have to adjust the dates somewhat..I may be working with some older paradigms on dates pertaining to the gospels.

archibald · 08-27-2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I don't quite get what point you are making here. My position on the gospel JC is that this figure is pseudo-historical and has primarily been created from the life stories of two historical figures.

And my point is how do you get to that position? Do you have coins featuring both historical figures? :]

And you haven't yet said what your position is on Theudas et al.

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I don't quite get what point you are making here. My position on the gospel JC is that this figure is pseudo-historical and has primarily been created from the life stories of two historical figures.

And my point is how do you get to that position? Do you have coins featuring both historical figures? :]

And you haven't yet said what your position is on Theudas et al.

JD47404. Bronze AE 20, Hendin 1163, Meshorer TJC 37, aVF, weight 7.495g, maximum diameter 19.2mm, obverse Hebrew inscription, Mattatayah the High Priest and Council of the Jews, single cornucopia tied with ribbons, grapes and grape vine hang; reverse BACILEΩC ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus), legend within wreath and border of dots; scarce; $105.00

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/cat....asp?vpar=1063

-------------------------------------

Herod Philip 4 B.C.E. - 34 C.E. AE 19 mm. 6.70 grams. Laureate head of Tiberius r.; laurel branch in field r.; TIBEPIOY CEBACTOC KAICAP / Tetrastyle temple on low platform, dot in pediment, date between columns (Year 34 = 30/31 C.E.); inscription (in the time of the founder Philip the tetrarch).

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greec..._philip/i.html

--------------------------------------

Theudas et al?

I don't have any evidence for historicity......

TedM · 08-27-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why can’t this charismatic historical figure be JC? One reason is that such a figure need not have been crucified. Another reason is that the short ministry in the gospel JC story - either one or 3 years, is far too short. Miracles aside, there is little of any consequence for people to have taken notice.

Wouldn't claims of his resurrection have made people take notice? Do you think such claims are highly improbable? What if he had been crucified during Passover--wouldn't that make such an idea more likely to have surfaced (ie Messiah atonement for sin?). Why do you accept a crucifixion some 100 years earlier but not one for JC? That's what I don't get--you seem to be piecing together various sources that are only vaguely related to put together a similar JC story rather then consider how more likely it might be for one charismatic man to have inspired much of the story due to a few people saying they thought he had been resurrected for whatever reason...

No, sorry Ted, resurrection does not cut it....

People can claim whatever - and then along comes another resurrection claim - and on with the party....

Crucifixion is a terrible thing. There is no logical way in which a physical crucifixion can ever be valued. To think that the early christians believed such an abhorrant idea is to do them a great disservice. It is Paul, with a theological spin on things, that sought to derive value from crucifixion. And, Ted, that value can never be from a physical crucifixion. 'Crucifixion' can only be deemed to have value in an other than physical sense - in a symbolic or figurative sense, ie in an intellectual context. Remember these words of Dawkins:

Quote:

Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.

This makes zero sense to me. Have you read Isaiah 53: "By his stripes we are healed". Are you familiar with passover sacrifice? It is pretty gruesome stuff too. The expected embarrassment of followers and revulsion of disbelievers are there: abandonment of the disciples, Jews seeing the cross as 'folly' or it being a 'stumbling block'. But, there is the flip side that Paul saw.. If that can be applied to your crucifixions believed to have been historical 100 years prior, why not to a recent one--even moreso when that person had been charismatic? Just as a physical animal slaughter could be 'valued' for the atonement it brings, so could a physical human slaughter be valued. You are limiting the creativity of desperate Jews in a way that I find totally unnecessary and against the evidence. If the Jews could accept the concept 100 years later, why not 100 years earlier? Too gruesome? Come on..I don't buy it.

I too am having trouble seeing how you can see how other historical crucified figures could figure into the historicity of Jesus, but not see how more logical it would be to just see it as applying to Jesus himself.

maryhelena · 08-27-2011, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Why can’t this charismatic historical figure be JC? One reason is that such a figure need not have been crucified. Another reason is that the short ministry in the gospel JC story - either one or 3 years, is far too short. Miracles aside, there is little of any consequence for people to have taken notice.

Wouldn't claims of his resurrection have made people take notice? Do you think such claims are highly improbable? What if he had been crucified during Passover--wouldn't that make such an idea more likely to have surfaced (ie Messiah atonement for sin?). Why do you accept a crucifixion some 100 years earlier but not one for JC? That's what I don't get--you seem to be piecing together various sources that are only vaguely related to put together a similar JC story rather then consider how more likely it might be for one charismatic man to have inspired much of the story due to a few people saying they thought he had been resurrected for whatever reason...

No, sorry Ted, resurrection does not cut it....

People can claim whatever - and then along comes another resurrection claim - and on with the party....

Crucifixion is a terrible thing. There is no logical way in which a physical crucifixion can ever be valued. To think that the early christians believed such an abhorrant idea is to do them a great disservice. It is Paul, with a theological spin on things, that sought to derive value from crucifixion. And, Ted, that value can never be from a physical crucifixion. 'Crucifixion' can only be deemed to have value in an other than physical sense - in a symbolic or figurative sense, ie in an intellectual context. Remember these words of Dawkins:

Quote:

Among all the ideas ever to occur to a nasty human mind (Paul’s of course), the Christian “atonement” would win a prize for pointless futility as well as moral depravity.

This makes zero sense to me. Have you read Isaiah 53: "By his stripes we are healed". Are you familiar with passover sacrifice? It is pretty gruesome stuff too. The expected embarrassment of followers and revulsion of disbelievers are there: abandonment of the disciples, Jews seeing the cross as 'folly' or it being a 'stumbling block'. But, there is the flip side that Paul saw.. If that can be applied to your crucifixions believed to have been historical 100 years prior, why not to a recent one--even moreso when that person had been charismatic? Just as a physical animal slaughter could be 'valued' for the atonement it brings, so could a physical human slaughter be valued. You are limiting the creativity of desperate Jews in a way that I find totally unnecessary and against the evidence. If the Jews could accept the concept 100 years later, why not 100 years earlier? Too gruesome? Come on..I don't buy it.

I too am having trouble seeing how you can see how other historical crucified figures could figure into the historicity of Jesus, but not see how more logical it would be to just see it as applying to Jesus himself.

Ted, bottom line is that you cannot provide evidence to support the assumed historicity of the gospel JC. Can't be done.

The idea that a physical crucifixion can be valued is the most immoral premise that can be uttered. Creativity my foot - more like a case of intellectual abdication.

Human sacrifices - please Ted - lets not throw reason out the window in some vain attempt to support the unsupportable. The gospel JC story is not dealing with such a monstrous despicable idea. Why? Because it is not dealing with a historical gospel JC. It is only the notion, the assumption, of a historical gospel JC, that generates such a preposterous idea. Remove that assumed historicity of the gospel JC - and the very notion of there being value in a human sacrifice goes with it.

Logic, Ted, logic, reason, rationality - don't sacrifice them in your attempt to support the assumption of a historical crucified gospel JC.

Kapyong · 08-27-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If you understood Paul you would know what this is most likely about:

Ah .. so YOU understand Paul, but no-one else does?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.