Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 03-27-2006, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kais

People have read and responded to that document in the past. You can find some of these responses here starting with post #140.

All Carrier did was sniff that he found Brunner rude. He made no reply when I asked him to state where Brunner was factually wrong. As for Vorkosigan, beyond his bluster all he has is the claim that the pericope of the adulteress is an interpolation, a position that has been demolished here more than once.

Amaleq13 · 03-27-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Yet he reports that Cephas, John, and James met the risen Christ. As this is rather a ridiculous notion, we must have to suspect something else.

Do you suspect "something else" about Paul's claim to have met the risen Christ?

Quote:

But why would randomly Jesus go to 500, especially if he were in heaven?

Where do you get the idea this appearance occurred "randomly"? Is it really a mystery why Jesus might appear to a crowd of faithful believers gathered together to venerate him?

Chris Weimer · 03-27-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Do you suspect "something else" about Paul's claim to have met the risen Christ?

Yes indeed.

Quote:

Where do you get the idea this appearance occurred "randomly"? Is it really a mystery why Jesus might appear to a crowd of faithful believers gathered together to venerate him?

The absence of any identification at all seems to me best that it be interpreted as in no particular significance. I actually don't think that Paul thinks that Jesus met 500 people at all. It contains all the signs of an obvious exaggeration for effect. "Well, he met Cephas, James, and John..." "Who else?" "Uh...500 people?" "Oh wow! He must have risen then!"

Heck, it works for Christians to this day.

Clivedurdle · 03-28-2006, 12:43 AM

I don't think that is an exaggeration. Pentecostal churches and healing meetings continually claim Jesus is with them. "Christ is with us" is part of Anglican liturgy. Forty years ago as a teenager I had a vision of a bloke in white and gave my heart to the lord. Stuff an electrode in a bit of someone's brain and they see God!

Imagine a classic emotional meeting of 500 people. Does not take much - they admit they have visions and do glossalia in the NT - to imagine they have seen THE RISEN Jesus. Add in anxiety about the Roman armies, possible lack of food - what if all this sharing of food etc was a reaction to survive in a siege, you would go apocaleptic (!) about god saving you.

Ted Hoffman · 03-28-2006, 01:58 AM

Chris,
You did not ID the author of the quote you provided, nor provide a link to the thread in which the comments were made.
This smacks of bad faith from your part. I think you witheld that information so that the readers would have found it difficult to assess the context under which the comments were made. This is a shoddy approach of handling issues. This slanted approach is unfair because you present yourself as the rational atheist sticking to reason, and others as dogmatic discussants laboring under a cult mentality. You dont have to rig the set up to favour you Chris. The fact is, there is an ideological angle to this MJ/HJ debate. And it has been noted by NT scholars themselves.

Is there an ideological angle to the debate?

As I noted, in The Historical Jesus (1991), John Dominic Crossan says regarding the unstandardized nature of historical Jesus research: "the historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke".
Crossan adds that because of this comical and irregular nature "it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography". However, Meier, as we learn below, thinks that Crossan and like-minded scholars are deluded on this and he contends that HJ scholars are doing theology, whether they realize it or not.

While he complains that there is "acute scholarly subjectivity" pervading the Historical Jesus studies, a neutral observer can easily discern that, in the midst of the melee of the Jesus Wars (as some Americans refer to it), Crossan too, with his face glistening with sweat and chest heaving with exertion, suffers from the same bias he accuses his warring colleagues of suffering from.
Read more here.

I specifically stated that you "ideologically lump together" with theologians. From conservatives like Meier, to fundies like Luke Timothy Johnson and R. H. Stein. Scholars like Robert Price and Tim Thompson lean away from the HJ Hypothesis. Carrier has recently made a stand and is firmly a MJ proponent. Regulars here like Vorkosigan and Toto lean away from a HJ and the best mind around, spin, is clearly against a HJ.

You yourself, are clearly ill equipped to make a stand on the matter because when I asked you for your methodology, you presented this. Now, that is simply pathetic. Your statement that you "do admit that's not as sensible as may" does not make up for the fact that you are have clearly done nothing to get things right - that is, compared to, for example, Michael Turton, who you keep saying is mistaken.

That you mention "DM-, the guy in charge of SecWeb feedback" as a reference point simply shows you are out of your depth. That you can ask me to show that "the earliest Christians held Jesus to be divine" is the height of absurdity. You want to argue that Jesus was an ordinary man who underwent apothesization. You are assuming what you should be proving.

Chris, when will you provide evidence for a HJ? When you are ready, start a new thread. Your convoluted implications about how you are misunderstood, how there is a cult mentality at work here, how your atheism is attached and so on are just sideshows that do nothing to clarify exactly what evidence you have that shows that a HJ existed.

Chris Weimer · 03-28-2006, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

You did not ID the author of the quote you provided, nor provide a link to the thread in which the comments were made.

I had originally. I was approached by another moderator and said that was going to far. Can't win, can I?

Quote:

You dont have to rig the set up to favour you Chris. The fact is, there is an ideological angle to this MJ/HJ debate. And it has been noted by NT scholars themselves.

And you thinking that poisoning the well actually does justice to either Meier or Crossan? Laughable.

Quote:

I specifically stated that you "ideologically lump together" with theologians. From conservatives like Meier, to fundies like Luke Timothy Johnson and R. H. Stein. Scholars like Robert Price and Tim Thompson lean away from the HJ Hypothesis. Carrier has recently made a stand and is firmly a MJ proponent. Regulars here like Vorkosigan and Toto lean away from a HJ and the best mind around, spin, is clearly against a HJ.

So quick to logical fallacies, are we? Let's see, ad hominem, poisoning the wel, and now argument from authority? Spin is, with all due respect, quite the scholar when it comes to his specialized field - Jewish studies and Semitic languages. I think even you may have seen me bow before his knowledge in that regard. In fact, it was spin who convinced me of his opinion on the scrolls. But that's besides the fact. I would be useless to appeal to as an authority on the scrolls, and likewise it is useless to appeal to spin on the historical Jesus. Apples and oranges.

Quote:

That you mention "DM-, the guy in charge of SecWeb feedback" as a reference point simply shows you are out of your depth.

That I mention -DM- was to rebut your ridiculous claim that any HJer is a closet Christian. That you now misconstrue my motives is certainly hypocritical.

Quote:

That you can ask me to show that "the earliest Christians held Jesus to be divine" is the height of absurdity. You want to argue that Jesus was an ordinary man who underwent apothesization. You are assuming what you should be proving.

What should we assume otherwise? Indeed, Ted, you want to argue that Jesus never existed at all, and you continue to use poor Greek skills and twisted arguments to make your point.

Quote:

Chris, when will you provide evidence for a HJ? When you are ready, start a new thread.

With all due respect, your attitude this far makes me weary of starting any new threads at IIDB, that I cannot even be an atheist and differ in opinion. Heck, Ted, at least I'm not saying you're a closet Satanist or a poor historian. I've focused intently on your arguments, and you claim I'm not an atheist. What bullshit is that, really? Give me one good reason why I should even bother to indulge you and bear your insults a second time?

No - actually, I will make another thread. Expect it soon.

Ted Hoffman · 03-28-2006, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Expect it soon.

I have a better idea: since most of us here do not believe that there is good evidence for a HJ, and you believe you have it, why not publish a book titled, say, HardCore Atheist Presents Evidence for the Real historical Jesus - that would be more profitable. What do you think?

You wont even bother defending your "methodology"?
Ah, Chris, you are no fun.

Ted Hoffman · 03-28-2006, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

...you claim I'm not an atheist.

Please cite where I make this claim.

Biff the unclean · 03-28-2006, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Actually, they only had about 40 or so years until Mark was written.

They haven’t stopped looking for 2000 yrs and I’m sure that had they found anything at all they would have mentioned it

Quote:

Who is that Jesus? What do you really know about him?

All we know about him is that he is a character in a story. The story is made up of retellings of previous stories and set in the exotic Middle East in a land that no longer existed when the first copies hit the stands.
Could have been hung on a real person I suppose, but could just as easily been only a character in a story book.

Quote:

But Paul says he knows people who knew Jesus. Why?

The same reason that Edgar Rice Burroughs starts Tarzan of the Apes with a scene where he meets a person who knew Tarzan.

Quote:

Why did the earliest Christians not realize that Jesus never existed?

All they had was the book. They believed the book.

Quote:

Why did Paul, writing at around 50s CE, mention that Jesus did live?

Because Oprah wasn’t born yet to call him to task on her TV show for passing fiction off as fact.

jakejonesiv · 03-28-2006, 07:15 AM

Here is the requested quote from Bolland concerning the origin of Jesus. NOBOTS, Don't expect me to do any more research assignments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.J.P.J. Bolland

Dat aan den mosaischen Josua of Ieesoûs de evangelische Ieesoûs of Jezus het ware is, beweert de vierde onzer evangelisten (Joh. 5 : 46), waar hij Ieesoûs o. m. laat zeggen: „Indien gij Moses geloofdet, zoudt gij mij gelooven, want die heeft van mij geschreven.“ „Waaruit men ziet,“ zeggen bij Hd. 7 : 45 de Statenvertalers, „dat de namen Jozua en Jezus eenerlei namen zijn.“Het is dan ook schriftverduistering, wanneer de synodale vertalers van 1866, in Hand. 7:45 en Hebr. 4:8 Jozua te lezen geven, alsof de Jozua van het Oude Verbond in Alexandrijnsche overzetting en de Jezus van het Nieuwe in den Hellenistischen grondtext verschillende namen droegen; deze schriftverduistering houdt nog verband met de algemééne verduistering van den Hellenistischen achtergrond des Christendoms door de Hervorming, die den grondtext der Joodsche schriften naar voren heeft doen komen en daardoor over het voorchristelijke Jodendom en zijnen oorsprong het licht der ware geschiedenis heeft doen opgaan, doch tevens van de Septuagint in het bijzonder en het voorchristelijke Joodsche Hellenisme in het algemeen den blik zoozeer heeft doen afwenden, dat de aan onze hoogescholen opgeleide predikanten de schriften der Synagoge beter verstaan dan die der Ecclesia en in het algemeen het ware geschiedkundige besef omtrent den oorsprong des Christendoms eigenlijk nu nog eerst te ontwaken heeft. De naam Jezus is de naam Ieesoûs en de naam Ieesoûs is de naam Jozua, zooals om te beginnen de Alexandrijnsche overzetters der Joodsche schriften dien gebezigd hebben; dat voorts ook de evangelische Jozua met Aegypte in het algemeen en Alexandrië in het bijzonder iets te maken heeft, valt op te maken uit het bericht bijvoorbeeld, dat Apollo(nio)s van Alexandrië, ervaren in de schriften en in den weg des Heeren onderwezen, nauwkeurig over Ieesoûs heeft geleerd, eer hij iets meer dan den doop van Johannes kende (Hd. 18 : 25), een schriftgegeven, dat dan de Statenvertalers van hunne zijde verduisteren, doordat zij niet Jezus maar ‘de zaken des Heeren’ te lezen geven. In de ‘revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses’ van dit jaar (12:2, bl. 172) schrijft Alfred Loisy: „Il faut avouer que le cas d’Apollos, qui était ‘instruit dans la voie du Seigneur’ et ‘enseignait exactement les choses de Jésus’ töut en ‘ne connaissant que Ie baptême de Jean’, est au moins singulier. Les explications des commentateurs sont peu satisfaisantes. L’hypothèse d’une altération dans le texte est trop commode et peut paraltre invraisemblable. Reste �* supposer que les conditions et les formes de l’évangélisation primitives ont été plus complexes et plus variées qu’on ne l’admet communément.“ Er is echter meer in begrepen of te begrijpen; er ligt al aanstonds in, dat een Alexandrijnsche Jood of Jodengenoot van de eerste eeuw zijn voorjesuaanschen Jezus heeft gehad als eene gestalte van de verbeelding, waarin het oude Mozaïsme niet meer voldeed. Feitelijk beantwoordt de evangelische Ieesoûs op zijne wijze aan de naamsverklaring, die door den Alexandrijnschen Philo min zuiver was te pas gebracht aan eenen opvolger van Moses, die ook bij hem Ieesoûs heette; „hij heeft velen verlost“ zegt van den evangelischen Jozua de alexandrinizeerende schrijver van 2 Clem. 2:7.

Jaker Jones IV

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

03-28-2006, 12:43 AM	#84
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I don't think that is an exaggeration. Pentecostal churches and healing meetings continually claim Jesus is with them. "Christ is with us" is part of Anglican liturgy. Forty years ago as a teenager I had a vision of a bloke in white and gave my heart to the lord. Stuff an electrode in a bit of someone's brain and they see God! Imagine a classic emotional meeting of 500 people. Does not take much - they admit they have visions and do glossalia in the NT - to imagine they have seen THE RISEN Jesus. Add in anxiety about the Roman armies, possible lack of food - what if all this sharing of food etc was a reaction to survive in a siege, you would go apocaleptic (!) about god saving you.

03-28-2006, 01:58 AM	#85
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Chris, You did not ID the author of the quote you provided, nor provide a link to the thread in which the comments were made. This smacks of bad faith from your part. I think you witheld that information so that the readers would have found it difficult to assess the context under which the comments were made. This is a shoddy approach of handling issues. This slanted approach is unfair because you present yourself as the rational atheist sticking to reason, and others as dogmatic discussants laboring under a cult mentality. You dont have to rig the set up to favour you Chris. The fact is, there is an ideological angle to this MJ/HJ debate. And it has been noted by NT scholars themselves. Is there an ideological angle to the debate? As I noted, in The Historical Jesus (1991), John Dominic Crossan says regarding the unstandardized nature of historical Jesus research: "the historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke". Crossan adds that because of this comical and irregular nature "it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography". However, Meier, as we learn below, thinks that Crossan and like-minded scholars are deluded on this and he contends that HJ scholars are doing theology, whether they realize it or not. While he complains that there is "acute scholarly subjectivity" pervading the Historical Jesus studies, a neutral observer can easily discern that, in the midst of the melee of the Jesus Wars (as some Americans refer to it), Crossan too, with his face glistening with sweat and chest heaving with exertion, suffers from the same bias he accuses his warring colleagues of suffering from. Read more here. I specifically stated that you "ideologically lump together" with theologians. From conservatives like Meier, to fundies like Luke Timothy Johnson and R. H. Stein. Scholars like Robert Price and Tim Thompson lean away from the HJ Hypothesis. Carrier has recently made a stand and is firmly a MJ proponent. Regulars here like Vorkosigan and Toto lean away from a HJ and the best mind around, spin, is clearly against a HJ. You yourself, are clearly ill equipped to make a stand on the matter because when I asked you for your methodology, you presented this. Now, that is simply pathetic. Your statement that you "do admit that's not as sensible as may" does not make up for the fact that you are have clearly done nothing to get things right - that is, compared to, for example, Michael Turton, who you keep saying is mistaken. That you mention "DM-, the guy in charge of SecWeb feedback" as a reference point simply shows you are out of your depth. That you can ask me to show that "the earliest Christians held Jesus to be divine" is the height of absurdity. You want to argue that Jesus was an ordinary man who underwent apothesization. You are assuming what you should be proving. Chris, when will you provide evidence for a HJ? When you are ready, start a new thread. Your convoluted implications about how you are misunderstood, how there is a cult mentality at work here, how your atheism is attached and so on are just sideshows that do nothing to clarify exactly what evidence you have that shows that a HJ existed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.