Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 05-21-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Ben, why would 2nd century authors reasonably be expected to know anything more about a historical Jesus than you or I?

Well, if you start with the assumption that Jesus never existed, then they wouldn't. But let's just assume that Jesus did exist. Is it not most reasonable that only a hundred years having passed, that some people might still know the historical Jesus?

When did Cicero write? When did Accius write? When did Andronicus write? When did Cicero and Accius say Andronicus wrote?

When do you say Andronicus wrote? How would you know without using either Cicero or Accius?

Roger Pearse · 05-22-2007, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Ben, why would 2nd century authors reasonably be expected to know anything more about a historical Jesus than you or I?

Perhaps because they have 100 times more material to work with? When 99% of all ancient literature is lost?

Roger Pearse

spamandham · 05-22-2007, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Well, if you start with the assumption that Jesus never existed, then they wouldn't. But let's just assume that Jesus did exist. Is it not most reasonable that only a hundred years having passed, that some people might still know the historical Jesus?

I don't think you have to start with the assumption he never existed. I think you only need recognize it's extremely unlikely anyone writing 100 years after the fact would have any first, or even second hand information (the average lifespan was around 40). Whatever they have to offer is a rehash of pre-existing ideas.

spamandham · 05-22-2007, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Perhaps because they have 100 times more material to work with? When 99% of all ancient literature is lost?

Roger Pearse

I'd be surprised if we have 1% of what they had. But it's the uniqueness of the information, rather than shear quantity, that's important.

EarlDoherty · 05-22-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham
Ben, why would 2nd century authors reasonably be expected to know anything more about a historical Jesus than you or I?

Perhaps because they have 100 times more material to work with? When 99% of all ancient literature is lost?

You mean like we have lost 99.999% of the extant versions of canonical Christian documents prior to the year 200?

Earl Doherty

Solo · 05-22-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Turn about on Ben's thread.

For Jesus historicists.

Imagine, one at a time, that each of the following statements could be shown to be true. How would that affect your belief in historicism?

1. Paul's letters were forged in the second century.

2 (or 3 if it could be proven he knew the gospels)

Quote:

2. Q never existed; Luke read Matthew.

0

Quote:

3. Mark wrote the second canonical gospel in the second century.

0 (3 if it was demonstrated that Mark used no sources - I believe Mark is allegorical)

Quote:

4. All the gospels were written in the second century.

0

Quote:

5. Josephus never mentioned Jesus; Eusebius added both references.

0

Quote:

6. Tacitus's lost volume of history contains no mention of Jesus.

0

Quote:

7. Mara bar Serapion had someone else in mind when he wrote of the wise king.

0

Quote:

8. The author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as having died as a sacrifice in heaven.

0-3 (depending)

Quote:

9. Papias knew nothing about a historical Jesus; he only reported the philosophical musings of some early followers of The Way. Eusebius distorted his meaning.

2

Quote:

10. Marcion's gospel was an original work; the orthodox church inserted matter to create canonical Luke.

2

Quote:

11. The author of our third canonical gospel and Acts was a woman who never knew Paul.

0

Quote:

12. Acts is a complete fiction, with many scenes based on a romance of the time that has been lost.

0 (assuming the romance was not found)

Quote:

13. Paul was not a Pharisee, never studied under Gamaliel.

0

Quote:

14. Paul was never in Rome, and died a peaceful death in 90 CE.

0 (assuming he wrote nothing after 60CE, he would have been completely cured of his Jesus affliction and nobody would bother now about a history of an unknown Galilean peasant in 1st century CE)

Quote:

15. Paul was never in Damascus.

0

Quote:

Anyone else - feel free to add to this.

16. Pontius Pilate never existed. Mentions of him are Christian relics and forgeries.

17. A fragment of text in Hebrew nearly identical to Matthew 10:24-25 was excavated at Qumran, and dated 40-100 BCE.

18. Gospel of Thomas was the earliest gospel.

19. The shroud of Turin was known to be fraud in 16th.century.

Jiri

Amedeo · 05-22-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Turn about on Ben's thread.

For Jesus historicists.

Imagine, one at a time, that each of the following statements could be shown to be true. How would that affect your belief in historicism?

1. Paul's letters were forged in the second century.

2. Q never existed; Luke read Matthew.

3. Mark wrote the second canonical gospel in the second century.

4. All the gospels were written in the second century.

5. Josephus never mentioned Jesus; Eusebius added both references.

6. Tacitus's lost volume of history contains no mention of Jesus.

7. Mara bar Serapion had someone else in mind when he wrote of the wise king.

8. The author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as having died as a sacrifice in heaven.

9. Papias knew nothing about a historical Jesus; he only reported the philosophical musings of some early followers of The Way. Eusebius distorted his meaning.

10. Marcion's gospel was an original work; the orthodox church inserted matter to create canonical Luke.

11. The author of our third canonical gospel and Acts was a woman who never knew Paul.

12. Acts is a complete fiction, with many scenes based on a romance of the time that has been lost.

13. Paul was not a Pharisee, never studied under Gamaliel.

14. Paul was never in Rome, and died a peaceful death in 90 CE.

15. Paul was never in Damascus.

Anyone else - feel free to add to this.

None of the above, because none of them refutes WHAT a Catholic Christian believes. It DISCREDITS the believer [which is what the bashers of Christianity aim at]; it does not refute any doctrine (which is what philosophers would be interested in). Discrediters/defamers are not interested in what is really true about ANYTHING; they are defenders of their own faith.

burlo · 05-22-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

feel free to add to this.

From left field:

If there is any substance to The Golden Bough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Bough
then the wrong guy got killed if I'm not mistaken.

Quote: "The Golden Bough attempts to define the shared elements of religious belief, ranging from ancient belief systems to relatively modern religions such as Christianity. Its thesis is that old religions were fertility cults that centered around the worship of, and periodic sacrifice of, a sacred king.

This king was the incarnation of a dying and reviving god, a solar deity who underwent a mystic marriage to a goddess of the earth, who died at the harvest, and was reincarnated in the spring. Frazer claims that this legend is central to almost all of the world's mythologies. The germ for Frazer's thesis was the pre-Roman priest-king at the fane of Nemi, who was ritually murdered by his successor:"

So I'm thinking that if Jesus was supposed to be the successor then He would have murdered the incumbent.

Amaleq13 · 05-24-2007, 10:41 AM

The tangent about the falsifiability of MJ/HJ has been split off into its own thread here.

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2007, 10:54 AM

That HJ is a product of the enlightenment? That previously, because everyone thought gods were part of the universe there was no problem with a Jewish hero figure?

There wasn't a distinction between natural and supernatural.

A bloke wandering around Palestine is therefore a diversion from the main theme - of Christ's salvation - and is not necessary for the Christology.

(It was originally Christ and Christians - it later became Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus - why does Paul not make up his mind about the name of the saviour of the universe?)

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

05-24-2007, 10:41 AM	#19
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	The tangent about the falsifiability of MJ/HJ has been split off into its own thread here.

05-24-2007, 10:54 AM	#20
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	That HJ is a product of the enlightenment? That previously, because everyone thought gods were part of the universe there was no problem with a Jewish hero figure? There wasn't a distinction between natural and supernatural. A bloke wandering around Palestine is therefore a diversion from the main theme - of Christ's salvation - and is not necessary for the Christology. (It was originally Christ and Christians - it later became Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus - why does Paul not make up his mind about the name of the saviour of the universe?)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.