Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-11-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Very well. On page 121 of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (my emphasis):

When you strip away the layers of edifying legend and controversial mythology, was Jesus baptized by John? A poll among New Testament scholars would no doubt yield a near-unanimous "yes" vote.

Again, you have posted another absurdity. People are investigating the veracity of the Jesus story they are NOT looking at polls conducted by Jesus worshipers. People need external evidence or external corroborative historical sources for the Jesus story.

In Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2 Josephus mentioned John the Baptist and it is NOT even claimed that Jesus was baptised by John.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostabeAbe

The only item in the life story of Jesus considered equally secure is his crucifixion....

Again, you promote absolute nonsense. There is no external historical source that show there was a character who was crucified for blasphemy on behalf of the Jews and was called a Messiah or worshiped as a God before the Fall of the Temple.

The betrayal and crucifixion of Jesus in the story appear to have been lifted from Psalms 22 and 41.9

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

....And the reason for this is perfectly clear by now: the baptism was so embarrassing to Christians, both because it seems to subordinate Jesus to John and because it seems to cast Jesus as a repentant sinner, that the early church would never have fabricated it....

Again, you produce more nonsense. People are investigating the veracity of the Jesus story. Everyone who can read will see that John the Baptist baptised Jesus in the Jesus stories. But there is just no external non-apologetic source that can show that there was a character called Jesus who was called a Messiah and worshiped as a God with the ability to FORGIVE ALL THE SINS of the Jews due to his resurrection.

There is reason to believe that the Baptism of Jesus was fabricated since some parts of the story are most like false. It almost certain that even if Jesus was baptised that there was NO voice from the clouds that said "This is my beloved son in whom I an well-pleased" when similar words are found in PSALMS 2.7

And, John the Baptist as fore-runner to Jesus appears to have been lifted from Isaiah 40.3.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Such reasoning is understandable, but it is also easily refuted, as long as one recalls that what offended one generation did not offend another. Mark seemingly had little enough trouble with a repenting Jesus. He appears not to have regarded himself "stuck" with the notion. Anyone who saw nothing amiss in it could have made it up if there were something useful in the story and there was. As some have suggested, the story may simply have originated as a cultic etiology to provide a paradigm for baptism: "Are you able to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"....

Your reasoning is admittedly easily refuted. You are engaged in inventions. After John baptised Jesus in the story, God was PLEASED not embarrassed.

Matthew 3:16-17 -

Quote:

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The baptism of Jesus in the story was a spectacle, Jesus went straight out the water. This is undoubtedly a fabricated event but the Gods were PLEASED with the results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And originally, Christians may have seen baptism by John as a credential, an authorization, even without an explicit endorsement of Jesus by John, in much the same way President Clinton cherished the videotape showing a youthful version of himself shaking hands with President Kennedy. There may well have been a period (or geographical areas) in which no Christians perceived the followers of John the Baptist as rivals, a period in which both men were venerated side by side in a larger "Essene" community.

This is too much inventions for me to cope with. You need to produce corroborative EVIDENCE from antiquity not make up stuff based on your imagination.

You need to show that the Jesus story was fundamentally true and not invent excuses for the authors of the fiction story called Jesus the Lord and Saviour, Creator of heaven and earth, the WORD, who was God and with God before anything was made.

Everyone who can read can see that in the Jesus story that he was born of a Virgin without an human father and was the Child of the Holy Ghost.

This appears to indicate Jesus was a fabricated entity unless you have some EVIDENCE from antiquity to show otherwise.

ApostateAbe · 07-11-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You replace the rest of my post with ellipses, and you miss a very relevant point. The point was not to convince anyone that Jesus was raised in Nazareth, etc. I anticipated that misunderstanding, and that is why I wrote to prevent it. It is frustrating to have to deal with misunderstandings even after I attempt to preempt them. Do me a favor, please: next time you want to disagree with a small part of what I write, quote the whole post and just put in bold the part that you disagree with. That way, you don't pass on your misunderstandings to anyone else.

The point was to address a specific point that spamandham made, which was that the lack of evidence for the details of Jesus' life reflects the lack of evidence for Jesus himself. I'll repeat my post for you, with extra emphasis on the part you skipped.

I think that the evidence that Jesus existed is the same evidence that gives us a rough profile, not a very detailed profile, of who Jesus was. Almost all of the scholars agree, for example, that Jesus was a traveling Jewish preacher who was raised in Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified by Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem. He had a mother named Mary, a father named Joseph, a brother named James, and few disciples named Peter, John and Judas. The debates are not over those things, at least not in the scholarship, so maybe that is why they wouldn't come to mind. I am not asking you to believe any of those things. Go ahead and believe whatever you want about how weak the evidence may be. I am just saying don't make the mistake of thinking that the debates over many of the details of Jesus are an indicator that we know absolutely nothing about him.

You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making. I'm not actually addressing this specific post. I'm addressing a consistent debating tactic that you use. I'm trying to get you to stop appealing to popularity/authority in this type of context. It is inappropriate - especially for those in this type of discussion that are questioning the very assumptions made by those scholars and/or the reasons for why the "consensus" exists in the first place.

You seem to be the only one in this context who is over and over again appealing to popularity/authority in these historicists/mythicist discussions.

Thanks, I get it. I am and have been well aware that the people around here do not give a damn for scholarly consensus when forming their own opinions, and that is OK. Sometimes, though, a claim or an implication is made that there is no scholarly consensus, and that is a point that I tend to combat. It has the side-effect of making me look like someone who appeals to authority. As far as I am aware, I have not recently made an argument for a historical fact using scholarly consensus.

Dave31 · 07-11-2010, 09:33 AM

Even Christian New Testament scholars can't agree on the so-called "evidence" for a historical Jesus.

Quote:

"One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."

- Merrill C. Tenney

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ), page 85-86

* Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

Quote:

"...there are very few sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus beyond the four canonical Gospels. Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits. Claims that later apocryphal Gospels and the Nag Hammadi material supply independent and reliable historical information about Jesus are largely fantasy. In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition."

- John P. Meier

- WWJ, page 86

* Dr. Meier is a Catholic University New Testament professor, Catholic priest and monsignor

Quote:

"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"

- F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement

- WWJ, page 84

Quote:

"The gospels are in fact anonymous"

- Dr. Craig L. Blomberg

- WWJ, page 60

Quote:

"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

- Dr. John Dominic Crossan

- WWJ, page 24

* Dr. Crossan is a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology, anthropology and New Testament textual and higher criticism. He is especially vocal in the field of Historical Jesus studies

Quote:

"...Christian scholars over the centuries have admitted that ... "there are parallels between the Mysteries and Christianity"1 and that "the miracle stories of the Gospels do in fact parallel literary forms found in pagan and Jewish miracle stories,"2 "...According to Form Criticism the Gospels are more like folklore and myth than historical fact."3

1. Metzger, HLS, 8.

2. Meier, II, 536.

3. Geisler, CA, 320.

- WWJ, page 259

Dave31 · 07-11-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v.6,83)

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ), page 84

There are over 20 passages in the NT which claim Jesus was famed far and wide. None of the claims have ever been substantiated with credible evidence still to this day.

Quote:

Jesus famed far and wide:

"These "great crowds" and "multitudes," along with Jesus's fame, are repeatedly referred to in the gospels, including at the following:

Matthew 4:23-25, 5:1, 8:1, 8:18, 9:8, 9:31, 9:33, 9:36, 11:7, 12:15, 13:2, 14:1, 14:13, 14:22, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9, 26:55;

Mark 1:28, 10:1;

Luke 4:14, 4:37, 5:15, 14:25, etc."

- WWJ, page 85

Quote:

"Additionally, even though many times in the gospels Jesus was claimed to have been famed far and wide, not one historian of the era was aware of his existence, not even individuals who lived in, traveled around, or wrote about the relevant areas. The brief mentions of Christ, Christians or Christianity we possess from non-Christian sources are late and dubious as to their authenticity and/or value. Nor is there any valid scientific archaeological evidence demonstrating the gospel story to be true or even to support the existence of Jesus Christ. Despite this utter lack of evidence, Christian apologists and authorities make erroneous and misleading claims that there are "considerable reports" and "a surprisingly large amount of detail" regarding the life of Jesus and early Christianity."

- WWJ, page 257

Prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we know them today.

Quote:

The Canon: A Second-Century Composition

"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.

"The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:

1. Ur-Markus (150)
2. Ur-Lukas (150+)
3. Luke (170)
4. Mark (175)
5. John (178)
6. Matthew (180)

"To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts...."

- WWJ, page 82-83

Toto · 07-11-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... On page 121 of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (my emphasis):

When you strip away the layers of edifying legend and controversial mythology, was Jesus baptized by John? A poll among New Testament scholars would no doubt yield a near-unanimous "yes" vote.

If you are going to confuse the result of a poll with a scientific consensus, there is no value to that consensus. You might as well call it the conventional wisdom, which is by definition wrong.

Price goes on to explain why these NT scholars are wrong - not just wrong but easily refuted.

.... Such reasoning is understandable, but it is also easily refuted, as long as one recalls that what offended one generation did not offend another. Mark seemingly had little enough trouble with a repenting Jesus. He appears not to have regarded himself "stuck" with the notion. Anyone who saw nothing amiss in it could have made it up if there were something useful in the story and there was. As some have suggested, the story may simply have originated as a cultic etiology to provide a paradigm for baptism: "Are you able to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

ApostateAbe · 07-11-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... On page 121 of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (my emphasis):

When you strip away the layers of edifying legend and controversial mythology, was Jesus baptized by John? A poll among New Testament scholars would no doubt yield a near-unanimous "yes" vote.

If you are going to confuse the result of a poll with a scientific consensus, there is no value to that consensus. You might as well call it the conventional wisdom, which is by definition wrong.

Price goes on to explain why these NT scholars are wrong - not just wrong but easily refuted.
[indent].... Such reasoning is understandable, but it is also easily refuted, as long as one recalls that what offended one generation did not offend another. Mark seemingly had little enough trouble with a repenting Jesus. He appears not to have regarded himself "stuck" with the notion. Anyone who saw nothing amiss in it could have made it up if there were something useful in the story and there was. As some have suggested, the story may simply have originated as a cultic etiology to provide a paradigm for baptism: "Are you able to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"[indent]

Yeah, Price apparently thinks that any set of ad hoc explanations pulled out of anyone's ass counts as "easily refuted," I guess, because, yeah, it really is easy to do. That is why there is no such thing as 100% agreement within NT scholarship, or any other field for that matter, because there is always somebody like Robert Price. The debate is not over whether Robert Price's opinions hold any water, however, but I do have another thread for that, the same thread I saved his quote about John the Baptist:

Abe reviews Robert Price on John the Baptist and Josephus

Toto · 07-11-2010, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... Yeah, Price apparently thinks that any set of ad hoc explanations pulled out of anyone's ass counts as "easily refuted," I guess, because, yeah, it really is easy to do.

So you heard the term "ad hoc" and now throw it around with abandon. I don't think you know what it means.

If you were more familiar with the literature, you would know that most critical NT scholars would agree at least in part with Price's criticism of the criterion of embarrassment.

Your last thread on Price was an embarrassment to you. You made charges about Price that were not true, and you made arguments that you could not sustain.

ApostateAbe · 07-11-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... Yeah, Price apparently thinks that any set of ad hoc explanations pulled out of anyone's ass counts as "easily refuted," I guess, because, yeah, it really is easy to do.

So you heard the term "ad hoc" and now throw it around with abandon. I don't think you know what it means.

If you were more familiar with the literature, you would know that most critical NT scholars would agree at least in part with Price's criticism of the criterion of embarrassment.

Your last thread on Price was an embarrassment to you. You made charges about Price that were not true, and you made arguments that you could not sustain.

I would love it if we could all agree on what "ad hoc" means and we could iron out the methodology about it. Do you think I should start a new thread on that?

aa5874 · 07-11-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

"The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

- The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v.6,83)

- Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ (WWJ), page 84

But, Tacitus and Suetonius did NOT mention the name Jesus at all, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 is a forgery and in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 even apologetic sources DENIED that an apostle James was the brother of Lord Jesus who was raisaed from the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave 31

There are over 20 passages in the NT which claim Jesus was famed far and wide. None of the claims have ever been substantiated with credible evidence still to this day.

That is the fundamental problem for HJers. They cannot explain how the most expected character for the Jews, "A Messiah", was living in Galillee for about 30 years and managed to go completely unnnoticed by even the Romans.

The Romans wanted to ERRADICATE all JEWISH MESSIAHS, yet JESUS the MESSIAH managed to elude all in the Roman Empire except 12 disciples and Paul.

The Jesus story put forward the absurd notion that JESUS was a made the MESSIAH of Jews retroactively and without the knowledge of the Jews themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave 31

..Prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we know them today.

And, it was counter-productive for a Jesus cult to have four contradictory Jesus stories in their possession and to have used them simultaneously.

It far more reasonable to deduce that each Jesus cult had their own SINGLE Jesus story whether or not it was similar to that of other Jesus cults based on the evidence supplied even by apologetic sources.

It would appear that the writer using the name Irenaeus inadvertently demonstrated that EACH cult would have used a SINGLE Jesus story.

Examine "Against Heresies" 3.11.7

Quote:

...For the Ebionites, who use Matthew's Gospel(3) only.......

But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a
blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he
still retains.

Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging
that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered,
preferring the Gospel by Mark.......

Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John......

Oddly enough the writer did not identify an "heretical" cult which used all four contradictory gospels simultaneously.

It would have been far more reasonable, or just to appear credible, for a Jesus cult to have a single comprehensive version of the Jesus story even if it used excerpts from some of the versions that were available and compiled a single version somewhat similar to the "Memoirs of the Apostles" as found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Toto · 07-11-2010, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
I would love it if we could all agree on what "ad hoc" means and we could iron out the methodology about it. Do you think I should start a new thread on that?

No, I don't think that would be helpful.

There is an established definition here: "It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and which cannot be adapted to other purposes."

There is nothing ad hoc about Price's observation (which has been made by other scholars) that Mark does not appear to be embarrassed by John's baptism of Jesus. There is nothing there than cannot be applied to any claim of embarrassment - in fact, every claim of embarrassment should be evaluated as to whether the fact was embarrassing to the author.

That's why your usage appears to indicate that you don't actually know what the phrase means and that you are shooting from the hip yet again (and shooting blanks, not to carry that metaphor too far.)

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.