Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-28-2012, 08:32 PM

Paul can easily be defined tautologically and sufficiently as the author of those 7 Epistles. He requires no other definition. If the same person wrote the "authentic" Pauline corpus, then that person is ipso facto Paul, even if nothing he said was true or even if he was Eusebius. paul is just a place holder name for "whoever wrote these letters."

spin · 03-28-2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For someone to be "historical" rather than just potentially real, requires substantive evidence.

You seem to be making some kind of pedantic, semantic protest which I think is frankly a non-sequitur with regards to what I'm asking. I am not asking what can be discovered historically or methodologically. I'm asking for a definition.

I've given the only meaningful definition of the expression that has any sense, a Jesus who can be shown to have existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You say a hypothetical person like the one I described would qualify as "real." My question is would it be fair to call him the "real Jesus?"

You misunderstand. Jesus may have been real, ie there is potential that Jesus was real, but I see no potential for him being historical, in that available evidence is unable to confirm that potential reality.

Jesus may have been real but lacks the prerequisites for being called historical. It doesn't matter which characteristics people pick out of the list, it won't change the inaccessibility of Jesus to historical investigation. We don't have any way that I know of that will allow us to circumvent the fact that our knowledge comes from the same mill that processes and develops on any figure in a tradition, real or imaginary.

History is about what can be shown of the past and there is a lot of the past that is inaccessible. If "historical" in the phrase "historical Jesus" has any sense, it's because the user thinks that they can demonstrate the existence of Jesus.

And <edited> about pedantry and semantics. It may have just dawned on you to try to define your terms, but I have lived with the notion of historicity in the context of Jesus for a long time and have expressed the problems here. You're not going to get to a meaningful understanding of a historical Jesus through a species of componential analysis. The best you'll get is a collection of expectations which more or less reflect what the majority accept, having isolated out suitable traits from the wider selection of Jesus data that are the Jesus tradition, based on reactions to 1700 years of apologetics that infest the christian literature.

Steve Weiss · 03-28-2012, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

There are no historical claims made about Hercules, so that comparison is not applicable. More accurate analogies would be Robin Hood, King Arthur or even King David.

The Hercules question is a dodge. I don't fundamentally misunderstand anything, I'm trying to see if we can clarify a consensus on what we mean when we talk about a "Historical Jesus."

The reason I put the supernatural characteristics on the poll is because it seems to me that some mythers are saying that a historical figure has to be magic to qualify as Jesus.

You cannot do history by polling. History is not derived from what people imagine.

Robin Hood, King Arthur and King David are NOT analogies of Jesus of the NT.

You have just exposed your DOUBLE standard.

You accept the description of Robin Hood, King Arthur, and King David exactly as we find them.

We do not POLL the description of Robin Hood, King Arthur and King David.

However, suddenly because the sources which claimed Jesus was baptized by John also claimed Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost in Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.26-35 and was God the Creator in John 1 then we are POLLING.

Please, why can't people accept the statements about History and biography of Jesus just like they accept the statements about Robin Hood, King Arthur and David??

Something has gone radically wrong--an historical Jesus is now being invented by the Ballot Box--only the majority will count.

Evidence from antiquity is no longer required.

100%

Steve Weiss · 03-28-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not asking a question about the Jesus of the Gospels.

Are you excluding the possibility that a historical figure can lie behind the myth, or are you saying that a non-supernatural historical figure cannot be called "Historical Jesus."

You are looking for an Hypothetical Jesus!!!

There is ONLY one Jesus in the Canon, the Non-historical Jesus, the Divine Jesus, the Jesus of Faith--Myth Jesus.

Any other Jesus outside the Canon is Hypothetical Jesus with no established credible description.

yep1

Steve Weiss · 03-28-2012, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not asking a question about the Jesus of the Gospels.

There is no other Jesus that is relevant for Christians.

Quote:

Are you excluding the possibility that a historical figure can lie behind the myth, or are you saying that a non-supernatural historical figure cannot be called "Historical Jesus."

Behind the gospel JC myth is history - and that history indicates that the gospel figure of JC reflects not one but two historical figures. There is no equation - such and such a historical figure = the gospel JC. The gospel JC is a composite literary figure that reflects the history of two historical figures.

Have a look at the chart I posted in the thread linked below.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

HISTORY REJECTS THE ASSUMPTION OF A HISTORICAL GOSPEL JESUS FIGURE

An argument based upon an interpretation of the gospel JC story - which is what Ehrman appears to be doing - is not the type of argument that will answer the question: Did Jesus Exist? A story, a narrative, cannot be used to establish the story's historicity. Historicity requires evidence, such as coins or artifacts. With such evidence a story, a historical narrative, can be developed. Minus the historical evidence, there is nothing upon which to build a historical narrative. The gospel JC story is a narrative without supporting historical evidence - hence that JC figure can be discarded as being historical.

Sure, if one wants to opt for a flesh and blood gospel JC (in whatever configuration suits ones taste) so be it. But don't lay claim to historicity for ones JC reconstruction. Actually, the term 'historical Jesus' is nothing more than the historicists trying to do one of those sleight of hand operations - bait and switch - and fait accompli - historical Jesus takes center stage - minus that so offending *assumption* charge.

Yep2. Jesus is a fictional character in a work of fiction which is so fantastic that even a suspension of disbelief wont give the book the slightest credibility.

tanya · 03-29-2012, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic, post 37

There are no historical claims made about Hercules, so that comparison is not applicable. More accurate analogies would be Robin Hood, King Arthur or even King David....

1. Is our understanding of these three figures based, initially, on Greek text identifying them as sons of god?
2. Can you procure from the forum, "a consensus on what we mean when we talk (sic) about a "Historical Hercules"? Why not?

Here's a 2nd century physical structure dedicated to Hercules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin, post 39

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Do you know of any other " υιου του θεου " which are "historical"? If so, which criteria did you employ to make that determination?

Every single male pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty was son of god. The criterion used is the same as the one you use: some text says so.

Since there are genuine historical criteria available, apart from these texts you mention, then we understand that these men were all "LEGENDS", i.e. real people, about whom, exaggerated, unverified, hyperbolic allegations of prowess arose. You confound legend and myth. Myth = claim of supernatural ability. The "ability" of the pharohs was legendary, but also very real: King Tutankhamun, for example, died as a result of a fractured femur, at the young age of 19. Now, did he die from hemorrhage, or infection? Ah, no one knows. Therefore his death is legendary, but it is not mythical. Whatever divine power he was alleged to possess, disappeared upon his youthful demise. His life was genuine, (we possess his DNA) and the details of his life, do not hinge on those texts, you cite, spin, professing his divinity.

Not so the case for Jesus. We know nothing about him, apart from the four gospels, none of which were written during his lifetime. We must therefore evaluate Jesus, exclusively from those contradictory accounts. The one constant, however, in those four gospels, is the claim for Jesus' divinity. That makes Jesus mythical, not legendary.

The reason "we care" about a presumed historicity of Jesus, is because such a claim is fraudulent. Jesus was a genuine character in a genuine Greek novel. Was there some living human who served as a model for this character? Who knows? We have no evidence. We possess only fiction, not history, to guide us.

The situation is not unlike War and Peace, into which Tolstoy inserted genuine historical figures, together with his fictional characters. Mark's good news includes genuine figures, like Pontius Pilate. That makes his novel more attractive to prospective donors...clever marketing did not begin with Apple computer....

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin, post 55

For someone to be "historical" rather than just potentially real, requires substantive evidence.

:notworthy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin, post 58

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the gospels, they don't constitute any historical evidence for one cannot tell when they were written, by whom or where.

:notworthy:
:notworthy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874, post 59

Well, this also applies to the Pauline writings. We don't know who actually wrote them, the actual time they were written and where they were written.

:notworthy:
:notworthy:
:notworthy:

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Paul can easily be defined tautologically and sufficiently as the author of those 7 Epistles. He requires no other definition. If the same person wrote the "authentic" Pauline corpus, then that person is ipso facto Paul, even if nothing he said was true or even if he was Eusebius. paul is just a place holder name for "whoever wrote these letters."

Why is it you PRESUME history without evidence??? This is a quest for history not a close-minded position where one side gets a FREE PASS to assume their own history from a discredited source.

You seem not to appreciate that people can QUESTION the veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline writer.

This is a SERIOUS matter. Presumptions will get you nowhere.

I do not accept Presumptions about Jesus, the disciples and Paul!!!!

Apologetic sources claimed Paul died Before the Fall of the Temple but also was AWARE of gLuke.

Scholars claim gLuke was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

You MUST understand why I cannot PRESUME the veracity and historical accuracy of the Pauline writer.

The Church cannot say when Paul did live!!!

If it really does NOT matter to you if Jesus did live or not then why are you PRESUMING that Jesus and Paul did exist.

Surely if Ehrman can use the Bible to claim Jesus was human then I can use the Bible to claim Jesus was MYTH.

Those on a Quest for an Historical Jesus say that Jesus of the NT was a Non-historical Jesus, the Jesus of Faith, the Divine Jesus--[Myth Jesus].

Doug Shaver · 03-29-2012, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

What would you need to see, Doug, to say that Hercules was historical, not mythical?

That would depend entirely on what the defenders of his historicity were saying about him. Show me one of those defenders, and then I will tell you about the man whom I would consider the historical Hercules if his existence were proven.

Doug Shaver · 03-29-2012, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

You chose, Doug, crucifixion and existence of disciples, as your criteria of choice.

They are my criteria of choice for the historical Jesus, not for anyone else.

tanya · 03-29-2012, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That would depend entirely on what the defenders of his historicity were saying about him. Show me one of those defenders, and then I will tell you about the man whom I would consider the historical Hercules if his existence were proven. (emphasis by tanya)

"proven" ?

really, Doug?

Does that mean, since you have selected crucifixion and existence of disciples, that you believe that the existence of Jesus of Capernaum has been "proven"?

On what basis, may I inquire, do your regard the existence of Jesus of Capernaum as PROVEN?

Holy Cow. Now, Doug, whatever else you are doing, please google Hercules, and tell me if the SEVERAL enormous stone temples dedicated to him, do not serve as ample evidence of his historical existence?

I will put it another way. Can you produce ANYTHING like the kind of stone architecture that we possess for Hercules, from the second century CE, for Jesus of Capernaum?

I hope you do not intend to cite the SINGLE copy of a 12th century copy of Tacitus' Annals, written originally in 115CE, and then copied in an Italian monastery one thousand years later, as evidence about the behaviour of Pontius Pilate 80 years before the era when Tacitus was writing.

Really, Doug, I am astonished.

:huh:

View Poll Results: Check off everything you would need to see to say a guy was a "Historical Jesus."
God	1	2.63%
Resurrection	3	7.89%
Healed miraculously and drove out real demons	3	7.89%
Was a conventional (non-supernatural) faith healer and exorcist, but did not do miracles	13	34.21%
Performed nature miracles such as walking on water	3	7.89%
Was born of a virgin	2	5.26%
Said all or most of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	4	10.53%
Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	21	55.26%
Believed himself to be God	2	5.26%
Believed himself to be the Messiah	5	13.16%
Was believed by his followers to be God	1	2.63%
Was believed by his followers to be the Messiah	16	42.11%
Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple	9	23.68%
Was crucified	27	71.05%
Was from Nazareth	8	21.05%
Was from Galilee	12	31.58%
Had 12 disciples	3	7.89%
Had some disciples, not necessarily 12	25	65.79%
Raised the dead	2	5.26%
Was believed by his disciples to still be alive somehow after the crucifixion.	17	44.74%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

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

03-28-2012, 08:32 PM	#61
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Paul can easily be defined tautologically and sufficiently as the author of those 7 Epistles. He requires no other definition. If the same person wrote the "authentic" Pauline corpus, then that person is ipso facto Paul, even if nothing he said was true or even if he was Eusebius. paul is just a place holder name for "whoever wrote these letters."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.