Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 04-12-2007, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I've done the same and gotten the same response. I think that the case against historicity is pretty well developed at this point, but the opponents choose to simply sit by and snipe at it, while not presenting their own case FOR historicity.

Every discussion I have seen of historicity, including recent scholarship, such as J.P. Meier's has flaws and statements that can be reasonably argued against. The majority of reason that people give for historicity can be shown to be totally bogus.

Oh well....

I don't know whether or not you are right in saying that the arguments on one side are totally bogus. All I know for sure is that the arguments I have seen presented on this thread on the other side are flawed. If there are no good arguments on either side, wouldn't it be reasonable to suspend judgement?

J-D · 04-12-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I guess that if the Ten Plagues happened you wouldn't expect that there would be any historical record of it, right, even though if they happened they would probably have been to most unusual and unexpected events in human history, easily the news story of the millennia?

If the Ten Plagues had happened, they would have been the news story of the millennium.

If an itinerant preacher gathered a small number of dedicated disciples, it could much more easily pass without notice. Don't you think?

J-D · 04-12-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If it can be established that there is no credible independent extra-biblical information about the character called Jesus, then the NT is the primary source of information about Jesus.

If it can be established, using the information of the NT, that Jesus could not have been born, then all the information in the NT, post birth, is false.

Stop right there.

It cannot be established, using the information in the Christian Scriptures, that Jesus could not have been born.

All that can be established is that Jesus could not have been born in the manner described in the Christian Scriptures. Not the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I ask any HJer, a simple question, who is the biological father of Jesus?

With a little effort, I bet I could find the names of dozens of people of unimpeachable historicity whose biological fathers are unknown. Inability to name somebody's biological father is not proof of non-historicity. What I do know is that if Jesus existed, then he must have had a biological father.

J-D · 04-12-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

So how would you explain the 30,000+ gods, goddesses, and imps of the "pagans" at this time? What of Zeus, Dionysus, Atlas, Hera, Hercules, Apollo, etc., etc.?

I think we've had that question already.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...95#post4345095

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I argue that the closer the Gospels are to the time of the supposed life of Jesus the more likely it is that Jesus didn't exist at all.

The Gospels are discounted by their content, not when they were written. The longer the time between the supposed life of this person and the writings about him, the more time there was for legend to grow.

If the first Gospel were written in 40 CE and claiming that Jesus died in 35 CE, then the whole story would certainly be totally fabricated and the Jesus character would just a pure fiction.

An interesting point, and a new one to me. Seems logical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The the Gospel of Mark, as I argue and believe, was written as fiction

Maybe you have argued this somewhere else, but on this thread you've only baldly asserted it.

aa5874 · 04-12-2007, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Yes, it may be. And that is where the historical analysis gets more complicated. If you want to talk to HJers on their own terms, you have to deal with the criteria of embarrasment, of dissimilarity, etc. And you may come out deciding that there was no Historical Jesus, but the argument will be more complex than angels do not exist therefore there was no Jesus.

'Angels do not exist therfore there was no Jesus' has never been my argument. Please read my OP. I beg of you ,kindly, do not distort my view.

That is one of the reason why I have to repeat my view all the time.

This my view: The historicity of Jesus is baseless, without merit.

The NT is the primary source of information about Jesus, but the NT is not credible.
The birth of Jesus as described in the NT is not biologically possible. Other incredible events include the baptism, the temptation, the miraculous healings, the transfiguration, the resurrection and ascension.
The NT also claimed that all these fictitious events were witnessed by people, this could not have happened.
No plausible event in the NT, with respect to Jesus, can be confirmed to be true.

There are no known credible extra-biblical information of Jesus, his followers or his teachings in the first century. There are no known mythological or anecdotal stories about Jesus, his followers or his teachings by any known historian of the first century.

In effect, nothing whatsoever is known about Jesus in the 1st century, whether anecdotal, mythological, theological or historical from an extra-biblical source.

I hope an HJer can correct me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am a moderator here, and I try to keep discussions on point. If there is no content to this thread, I can close it or move it to another forum. The only reason I haven't is that some of the people responding have made some points.

Since you are the moderator, you make your decision. I just go with flow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Who has said that your "logics are excellent?"

Are all the logical wizards on this forum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why do you think that this is a simple question? It asks about "everything" in the NT that is plausible, which is a lot of material. And why do you think that the answer would be significant? If you asked "Is ANYTHING" that is plausible (non-supernatural) in the NT about Jesus true?" an answer of YES would indicate that there was a historical Jesus. Not everything claimed about him has to be true.

Well, that's ok, I can change from ''everything' to 'anything'. Is there anything true about Jesus in the NT? If your answer is in the affirmative, could you indicate?

spin · 04-12-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

Could you tell me some of the sources of the wisdom tradition? I'm particularly interested in John's Gospel.

The tradition as you might expect is spread out in the bible, the apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha. For the bible, look at Prov. 8:1-9:6 as an early manifestation. Then Ben Sira 24 in the apocrypha, along with the Wisdom of Solomon which has wisdom studded through it, and Baruch 3. And 1 Enoch 52:1-2 in which wisdom came to earth but found no dwelling place so returned to heaven. Philo of Alexandria is the Jewish writer who welds the Jewish wisdom onto the Greek logos and we have the logos there in the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

And the legend of St Veronica, presumably.

Like St Christopher who carried the baby Jesus.

But Ebion was a more "scholarly" development. Not an old wives' tale. Yet, traditions don't care about the source of what they carry.

spin

aa5874 · 04-12-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Stop right there.
All that can be established is that Jesus could not have been born in the manner described in the Christian Scriptures.

That is exactly my position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

With a little effort, I bet I could find the names of dozens of people of unimpeachable historicity whose biological fathers are unknown. Inability to name somebody's biological father is not proof of non-historicity.

But actually you dont have look for the biological father of Jesus, he doesn't have one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What I do know is that if Jesus existed, then he must have had a biological father.

But based on the NT he didn't.

Anyhow, if Jesus existed, what would be the name of his mother or father, since the NT's conception has some biological problems? And would Jesus really be his name, since the NT has some prophectic problems?

Maybe we should be looking for, Adam, Eve and Abel!

J-D · 04-12-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, I doubt that all of the gods and "mythical figures" of the other cultures are based on real human beings. Maybe some of them are, but not all of them.

I suppose if I were forced to bet, that's the way I'd bet too. But I don't know that I could justify that. Do you think you can?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Do you think that "Mithras" was a real person? Why or why not?

I don't know. I don't know how to find out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

What arguments can you apply to Jesus that don't apply to Mithras?

This piece looks at a lot of the pre-Jesus stories that prefigure the Jesus story. I can see very easily how these stories would evolve into the Jesus one.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm

Furthermore, if the Gospel of Mark was the first writing to really set Jesus in history, and prior to that he was viewed as an abstract heavenly concept, then there really isn't much of a challenge to this. Again, if Mark was an intentional fiction, this is really no different than people thinking that Huckleberry Finn was a real person a few years after Mark Twain's book became popular.

You still haven't indicated the basis on which you conclude that Mark was an intentional fiction. I find it a provocative speculation, but so far it's an unsupported one.

J-D · 04-12-2007, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hellenistic novels of the period have a lot in common with the gospels, including empty tombs.

Michael Turton who has posted here as Vorkosigan has written about this: Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

'Robert Price (2000, p214-21) has shown that empty tombs and resurrection scenes were a staple of early Greek and Roman popular romances, occuring in such stories as Chaereas and Callirhoe, Xenophon's Ephesian Tale, Leucippe and Clitophon, Daphnis and Chloe, Heliodorus' Ethiopian Story, The Story of Apollonius, King of Tyre, Iamblichus' Babylonian Story, and in places in Apuleius' The Golden Ass.'

I read Daphnis and Chloe, too long ago to remember the empty tomb or resurrection scene, but not so long ago that I have any hesitation in saying that whatever individual motifs it may share with Mark, it doesn't belong to the same genre.

J-D · 04-12-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Can you show me that the account of the birth of Jesus in the NT was recorded in error?

Nobody needs to show you this. You know it. You know that it can't be true. You've said so many times.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.