Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dogsgod · 04-09-2010, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

I looked in vain for that quote.

Never mind, I found it without using the edit find.

David Deas · 04-09-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

The mere suggestion of a 'historical Jesus' is simply remythologizing Jesus, same as they did 2000 years ago. Everybody knows that. Everybody understands that. Despite the picture that is often painted regarding these 'historical Jesus' scholars, they are well aware of the speculative nature of their work.

Please be very much aware that the very first 'historical Jesus' scholar did not in fact write 2000 years ago, but rather a little over 1600 years ago. In fact scholars are in good agreement that the very first 'historical Jesus' scholar actually wrote between the years of 312 and 324 CE, a period which is precisely in line with the rise to absolute military supremacy of the emperor Constantine.

The statement containing "same as they did 2000 years ago" was intended to be vague. I am not necessarily refering in specific to scholars of any type, past or present. I could be referring to Paul. Or the authors of the Gospels. Or anybody, anytime who gave any sort of creative hand in determining some identity for Jesus, whether they were 'scholars' or not.

Like I said, nobody is unaware of the speculative nature of the 'historical Jesus' topic. Least of all, scholars. At the same time, scholars are understandibly very resistant to being made to feel like their work has no real merit or truth value, which is often a large part of the overall message being sent.

rlogan · 04-09-2010, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Actually, he very much seems to be writing from the Biblicist Christian perspective. I am half-way through the article.

Well, he doesn't pass the science test.

Quote:

This is what I said to myself: As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb.

So hey, you're a historian with a low science I.Q.

Nobody's perfect.

dogsgod - sorry I didn't cite that exactly but it was past the first page and near the material on this hokey double-dissimilarity methodology.

I don't know if he is right about saying this is a core tenet of historicism.

aa5874 · 04-09-2010, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

The mere suggestion of a 'historical Jesus' is simply remythologizing Jesus, same as they did 2000 years ago. Everybody knows that. Everybody understands that. Despite the picture that is often painted regarding these 'historical Jesus' scholars, they are well aware of the speculative nature of their work.

Please be very much aware that the very first 'historical Jesus' scholar did not in fact write 2000 years ago, but rather a little over 1600 years ago. In fact scholars are in good agreement that the very first 'historical Jesus' scholar actually wrote between the years of 312 and 324 CE, a period which is precisely in line with the rise to absolute military supremacy of the emperor Constantine.

No. The writer under the name Eusebius presented a MYTH as history.

The writer claimed Jesus was both fully God and fully man. This is a PERFECT description of a MYTH.

Eusebius in effect presented a LIE since there could not have any actual history of a MYTH.

Steven Carr · 04-09-2010, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

From the article:

'Most historical Jesus scholars assume that the Gospels are historically unreliable'

You don't say...

That can't be right. I keep hearing that those scholars assume the opposite.

Yes. That is what I hear.

I am also told that a True Historian gives ancient works the benefit of the doubt.

Not that there is any doubt over the historicity of Jesus, of course.

But if there were any doubt over the historicity of the Gospels, a True Historian would given them the benefit of it.

aa5874 · 04-10-2010, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

From the article:

'Most historical Jesus scholars assume that the Gospels are historically unreliable'

You don't say...

That can't be right. I keep hearing that those scholars assume the opposite.

But it MUST be that scholars REJECT the following as NON-historical:

Quote:

1. The conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

2. The baptism of Jesus where the Holy Spirit entered Jesus like A dove.

3. The temptation of Jesus when the devil had him on the pinnacle of the Temple.

4. The miracles of Jesus when he used spit to make people see.

5. The walking on the sea by Jesus during a storm.

6. The cursing of a tree so that it would die.

7. Raising a rotting corpse to life.

8. The transfiguration.

9. The resurrection.

10. The ascension.

Now, even in your "best-guess" gospel ("Abe's Gospel) you reject the history of the Canonical Jesus and have presented your own "best-guess" Jesus.

It is true that scholars REJECT the historical reliability of the Canon and have invented their own. It would appear that some similar practice was utilized in antiquity. The Johanine Jesus appear to have been written after the Synoptic Jesus was deemed or believed to be a failure or a false prophet.

Dutch_labrat · 04-10-2010, 02:42 AM

What christians find hard to stomach is that non-christians do not believe the gospels. The texts and precepts that they consider sacred and holy are to others utterly uninteresting.

It you take the gospels even only somewhat serious a historical Jesus is an obvious fact. If you don't there is nothing left but the myth.

youngalexander · 04-10-2010, 03:02 AM

Golly,
I wonder if RC has it covered in OHJC?

ApostateAbe · 04-10-2010, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That can't be right. I keep hearing that those scholars assume the opposite.

Yes. That is what I hear.

I am also told that a True Historian gives ancient works the benefit of the doubt.

Not that there is any doubt over the historicity of Jesus, of course.

But if there were any doubt over the historicity of the Gospels, a True Historian would given them the benefit of it.

Who told you that?

jgreen44 · 04-10-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

NT Wright responds[/url] by invoking Godwin's Law and then going off the deep end.

Quote:

If Jesus didn't really exist, or was really a revolutionary Zealot, or a proto-Buddhist mystic, or an Egyptian freemason, the "for me" floats like a detached helium balloon on the thin, vulnerable air of subjectivism. It is when we put Jesus in his proper historical context that the Resurrection proposes that he was the Messiah, that the Messiah is Lord of the world, and that he died and was raised for me. History is challenging, but also reassuring.

He has got to be kidding. A priori belief in Jesus the Zealot or Jesus the Buddhist or Jesus the freemason is evidence of subjectivism (which it is) but a priori belief in Jesus the resurrected Lord of the World is not evidence of subjectivism?!?

04-10-2010, 03:02 AM	#18
youngalexander Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mornington Peninsula Posts: 1,306	Double Dissimilarity Golly, I wonder if RC has it covered in OHJC?

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

04-10-2010, 02:42 AM	#17
Dutch_labrat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Leiden, The Netherlands Posts: 970	What christians find hard to stomach is that non-christians do not believe the gospels. The texts and precepts that they consider sacred and holy are to others utterly uninteresting. It you take the gospels even only somewhat serious a historical Jesus is an obvious fact. If you don't there is nothing left but the myth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.