Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-01-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

OK, I am not looking for debate about some of the finer details or core arguments. I chatted with a good friend the other day who is also a theologian and historian and is a cultural Cof E/Buddhist/Taoist/confused. He accepted that a mythical Christ makes for a very powerful/logical argument but he just could not shake off the human Jesus. I sympathise with him in that there is still a thought process that does not exclude a historical Jesus. I mentioned this site and how many here consider Jc to be [in all probability] historical.

so the question is not, what is wrong with the other side of the argument but why do you, a logical aware person with an enquiring mind that you have, accommodate a historical Jesus?

Is it an almost religious acceptance?:devil:

Jesus has become a figure in popular culture. He represents a lot - the ideal self-sacrificing moral leader, someone who can be used to get people to recognize their better and more humane instincts. Who wants to give this up? Not liberals, certainly. For them, Jesus was the most successful leader of a socialist movement in history, if they can only believe the history.

aa5874 · 06-01-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrunicycler

*struggling***to***not***keep***derailing***this** *thread***

I said I would, and am really, really, trying.

Perhaps, you should try being respectful, as well, and drop it.

Or, start the thread.

Respectful? What in the world are you talking about? If it's a derail, then the mods will move it. Unless you recognize your defeat, why aren't you starting the new thread?

Quote:

The name Jesus is NOT in any extant writings of Tactitus.

Thank you.

There are no writings of Tactitus anyway. And Tacitus uses the name "Christ".

The word in English translations of Annals 15.44 is "Christus" NOT "Christ".

Annals 15.44

Quote:

......Christus, from whom the name had its origin.....

See http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.11.xv.html

aa5874 · 06-01-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

OK, I am not looking for debate about some of the finer details or core arguments. I chatted with a good friend the other day who is also a theologian and historian and is a cultural Cof E/Buddhist/Taoist/confused. He accepted that a mythical Christ makes for a very powerful/logical argument but he just could not shake off the human Jesus. I sympathise with him in that there is still a thought process that does not exclude a historical Jesus. I mentioned this site and how many here consider Jc to be [in all probability] historical.

so the question is not, what is wrong with the other side of the argument but why do you, a logical aware person with an enquiring mind that you have, accommodate a historical Jesus?

Is it an almost religious acceptance?:devil:

Jesus has become a figure in popular culture. He represents a lot - the ideal self-sacrificing moral leader, someone who can be used to get people to recognize their better and more humane instincts. Who wants to give this up? Not liberals, certainly. For them, Jesus was the most successful leader of a socialist movement in history, if they can only believe the history.

But, liberals do not accept the history of Jesus as written in the NT, nor do they want to believe it. Liberals want to believe in another history that they think is plausible, a history that does not include the Holy Ghost conception and his awesome ascension.

Toto · 06-01-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jesus has become a figure in popular culture. He represents a lot - the ideal self-sacrificing moral leader, someone who can be used to get people to recognize their better and more humane instincts. Who wants to give this up? Not liberals, certainly. For them, Jesus was the most successful leader of a socialist movement in history, if they can only believe the history.

But, liberals do not accept the history of Jesus as written in the NT, nor do they want to believe it. Liberals want to believe in another history that they think is plausible, a history that does not include the Holy Ghost conception and his awesome ascension.

SO WHAT? We are talking about a literary creation here.

Liberals have extracted the elements from the gospel stories that they prefer - the pacificism, the wisdom, the self sacrifice, the anti-materialism. It probably started with Thomas Jefferson, who took his scissors to the gospels and took out the supernatural stuff.

You got a problem with that?

jules? · 06-02-2008, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, liberals do not accept the history of Jesus as written in the NT, nor do they want to believe it. Liberals want to believe in another history that they think is plausible, a history that does not include the Holy Ghost conception and his awesome ascension.

SO WHAT? We are talking about a literary creation here.

Liberals have extracted the elements from the gospel stories that they prefer - the pacificism, the wisdom, the self sacrifice, the anti-materialism. It probably started with Thomas Jefferson, who took his scissors to the gospels and took out the supernatural stuff.

You got a problem with that?

all true, I bought into the whole jesus the liberal school but I think the 'shame' is that better humanists in history have been overlooked as a consiquence.

jules? · 06-02-2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

sometime ago i did a poll on this site with the top result being Jesus was probably a end-time preacher which I mentioned. Is it some kind of group illusion, is it simply that a historical Jesus is more human, and therefore more acceptable than a cosmic one? Is it years of indoctrination? group think perhaps?

Those are the only possibilities you can imagine?

In your view, is it impossible for anyone to rationally consider the ambiguous evidence and conclude, if for no other reason than ubiquity, that it is more likely that a real person has been thoroughly mythologized rather than conclude that a mythical person has been historicized?

No, there is a part of me that leans to a real person but given the weight of evidence to me at least points to a myth. I like the idea of king Arthur and as much I like the romance I know it is really myth [based on facts like all of our culture]

Malachi151 · 06-02-2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, liberals do not accept the history of Jesus as written in the NT, nor do they want to believe it. Liberals want to believe in another history that they think is plausible, a history that does not include the Holy Ghost conception and his awesome ascension.

SO WHAT? We are talking about a literary creation here.

Liberals have extracted the elements from the gospel stories that they prefer - the pacificism, the wisdom, the self sacrifice, the anti-materialism. It probably started with Thomas Jefferson, who took his scissors to the gospels and took out the supernatural stuff.

You got a problem with that?

I have a problem with it because its simply isn't a legitimate method for arriving at history. I have as much problem with that as if someone came up with a humanized Apollo or Zeus or Odin and tried to pass them off as historical figures.

jules? · 06-02-2008, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

jules "so the question is not, what is wrong with the other side of the argument but why do you, a logical aware person with an enquiring mind that you have, accommodate a historical Jesus?

Is it an almost religious acceptance?"

From my view, yes, the belief in a HJ appears to be like a sort of religious acceptance that never ceases to amaze me. Even many so-called atheist and freethinking scholars are expected to tow the party line that there was HJ without any evidence that stands up to peer review and scientific scrutiny. They offer merely wishy washy assumptions.

Even Christian authorities concede the evidence for Jesus is "scanty and problematic" "but I still believe..." type of responses.

A paradigm shift is in order. It's time to put an end to the a priori assumption that there was a HJ until there is evidence for it that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny.

Who Was Jesus? video
http://www.livevideo.com/video/1FDF3...prints-of.aspx

I suppose it is the balance of probability based on evidence. I have no idea what would happen if 12 non-believers were subjected to the evidence!

But.. like a courtcase there is no need to bring in new theories. The MJ'ers are not united and I think the presentation of new theories distracts from the key issues.

robto · 06-02-2008, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

OK, I am not looking for debate about some of the finer details or core arguments. I chatted with a good friend the other day who is also a theologian and historian and is a cultural Cof E/Buddhist/Taoist/confused. He accepted that a mythical Christ makes for a very powerful/logical argument but he just could not shake off the human Jesus. I sympathise with him in that there is still a thought process that does not exclude a historical Jesus. I mentioned this site and how many here consider Jc to be [in all probability] historical.

so the question is not, what is wrong with the other side of the argument but why do you, a logical aware person with an enquiring mind that you have, accommodate a historical Jesus?

Is it an almost religious acceptance?:devil:

Hi, Jules? Trying to get back to the OP here...

I have read a fair amount of NT criticism. What is remarkable to me is the that, as you push backward in time to the earliest Christians, you get to material which is LESS mythical, rather than more. I'm talking about
- Mark is the earliest gospel, and the least "legendary".
-The Q source contains very little of what we think of as the Christ myth.
- The Gospel of Thomas has a lot of overlap with the canonical materials, yet it has a very different mythological basis.

The last point I find very significant. (There was a recent thread about it you might want to look for.) If the MJ hypothesis were true, we would expect to find a uniform initial myth as the starting point for Christianity. We don't. What we find instead is a common set of ideas/quotations ascribed to a common character: Jesus.

Backing this up are the historical facts: no mention of any Jesus myth before the first century, lots of Christians running around by the end of the second century.

It's not that I'm not open to a historical reconstruction that doesn't include an actual human named Jesus. I simply have never seen such a reconstruction that makes as much sense of the evidence as the historical Jesus hypothesis does.

Hope this is what you were looking for.

dog-on · 06-02-2008, 06:32 AM

Robto, did you leave out the epistles for a reason?

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

06-02-2008, 06:32 AM	#40
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Robto, did you leave out the epistles for a reason?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.