Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 12-19-2008, 12:56 AM

How about this, Mr. Loftus.

Please present your historical Jesus, without making him up.

Thank you.

Steven Carr · 12-19-2008, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I have not read Stanton (or via: amazon.co.uk) but he does not appear to be a historian, and the book you reference has only a few pages on the issue of whether Jesus existed.

Stanton is a good historian, but he does not address the mythicist case.

How could he?

The debate has not started yet.

When historicists explain things like Romans 10, or the way Paul thinks the authorities never touch innocent people in Romans 13, or 2 Cor. 12 where Paul knows there are lots of different Jesus's being preached (He preached a crucified Jesus), then the debate can begin.

Steven Carr · 12-19-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Then you have not read what I've said. Jesus was the founder of the Jesus cult. He was a failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet who was a disciple of John the Baptist. He gathered a small band of disciples together and roamed the land preaching this doomsday message and that people should sell all and give to the poor and follow him in waiting for the coming Son of Man who was to rule from Jerusalem after a total cosmic catastrophe in which even the stars fell to earth. This is the bare outline, and it fits with other things we know about the Jewish expectation of a Messiah in that era. He was crucified.

And exactly ZERO of that appears in the earliest Christian writings, where Paul explains the message of his crucified Jesus.

Not even 'Son of Man' appears as a title.

Paul was apocalyptic, but his writings about what Jesus said have no more backing that Benjamin Creme telling us what the Maitreya says about the forthcoming world events.

John W. Loftus · 12-19-2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why is it that so many people to try this tack of baiting and shifting? "Give me a target to shoot at so I don't have to deal with my own conjectures." When people refuse as you do to get into specifics it usually means that you don't have any specifics.

I don't have a view on the issue. I know what the data is: a complex muddle of traditions without there being any fixed point from which to be able to extract evidence out of the muddle. Traditions are notorious for their multiplication once started. Can you look at the William Tell traditions or t he Robin Hood traditions and extract any historical evidence from them about the central figures? This doesn't mean that they did or did not exist. It means that the traditions aren't forthcoming. You can't do history with them.

I do. Being a non-committal skeptic is esay, isn't it? Do the hard work. Take a position. That's what historians are asked to do. Place your view next to mine. See if it has fewer holes in it with more evidence. Until you take a position there is nothing to compare with mine to see which is more probable.

Quote:

I have pointed out to you that Paul didn't need a historical Jesus, having never met one, yet having sufficient commitment to convert several communities to believe in this Jesus, people who had never had any experience of Jesus other than the information supplied by Paul. In this process there is no need for an actual failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet, just the idea. That's the earliest indications we have of the start of the religion.

I disagree that Paul didn't believe in a real person, although I agree mythic elements were added like a resurrection.

Quote:

So all your slavish use of the gospels seem to be short-circuiting the historical process to me. You simply assume your conclusions and, when this is pointed out to you with a request for you to go back and supply tangible evidence, you just seek to change the burden of proof by looking for a counter position to attack.

This is patently false. There is textual evidence. Lots of it.

Quote:

If Paul didn't need a real Jesus, why do you?

The textual evidence in Galatians says Paul met with the Jerusalem leaders who were former disciples of Jesus. In order to deny that evidence you are in the weak position of denying anything that does not fit with your preconceived notions, and that, my friend, is not objective research, but special pleading. Good luck with that anywhere else.

Steven Carr · 12-19-2008, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

The textual evidence in Galatians says Paul met with the Jerusalem leaders who were former disciples of Jesus. In order to deny that evidence you are in the weak position of denying anything that does not fit with your preconceived notions, and that, my friend, is not objective research, but special pleading. Good luck with that anywhere else.

DO you have the latest edition of Galatians, where Paul says Jesus had 'disciples'?

I was working with the old, out-dated edtion.

John W. Loftus · 12-19-2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Then you have not read what I've said. Jesus was the founder of the Jesus cult. He was a failed apocalyptic doomsday prophet who was a disciple of John the Baptist. He gathered a small band of disciples together and roamed the land preaching this doomsday message and that people should sell all and give to the poor and follow him in waiting for the coming Son of Man who was to rule from Jerusalem after a total cosmic catastrophe in which even the stars fell to earth. This is the bare outline, and it fits with other things we know about the Jewish expectation of a Messiah in that era. He was crucified.

And exactly ZERO of that appears in the earliest Christian writings, where Paul explains the message of his crucified Jesus.

Not even 'Son of Man' appears as a title.

Paul was apocalyptic, but his writings about what Jesus said have no more backing that Benjamin Creme telling us what the Maitreya says about the forthcoming world events.

Bald assertion that goes against the textual evidence because of special pleading. I've explained to you the textual evidence, meager that it is. You reject it. I cannot help you.

dog-on · 12-19-2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

The textual evidence in Galatians says Paul met with the Jerusalem leaders who were former disciples of Jesus. In order to deny that evidence you are in the weak position of denying anything that does not fit with your preconceived notions, and that, my friend, is not objective research, but special pleading. Good luck with that anywhere else.

Only in your own preconceived notions, does Galatians say anything of the sort.

John W. Loftus · 12-19-2008, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

The textual evidence in Galatians says Paul met with the Jerusalem leaders who were former disciples of Jesus. In order to deny that evidence you are in the weak position of denying anything that does not fit with your preconceived notions, and that, my friend, is not objective research, but special pleading. Good luck with that anywhere else.

DO you have the latest edition of Galatians, where Paul says Jesus had 'disciples'?

I was working with the old, out-dated edtion.

Yes, it's in my private library...a huge secret.

Listen, I know the problem. There were forgeries. Damn those Christians. They caused this problem. But peer-reviewed scholarship accepts Galatians as written by Paul, even most all skeptics. Now what?

Steven Carr · 12-19-2008, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And exactly ZERO of that appears in the earliest Christian writings, where Paul explains the message of his crucified Jesus.

Not even 'Son of Man' appears as a title.

Paul was apocalyptic, but his writings about what Jesus said have no more backing that Benjamin Creme telling us what the Maitreya says about the forthcoming world events.

Bald assertion that goes against the textual evidence because of special pleading. I've explained to you the textual evidence, meager that it is. You reject it. I cannot help you.

It seems John just cannot bring himself to argue like a rational person.

What is the emotional hang up here?

If I say the plain TRUTH, that Paul never uses any title like of Son of Man, John just parrots his 'textual evidence' mantra.

What is wrong with the guy? Why cannot he show the tiniest bit of respect to people and actually talk to them like human beings who have different opinions rather than dismissing them by constant repetition that he is right and others are wrong?

John W. Loftus · 12-19-2008, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by John W. Loftus

The textual evidence in Galatians says Paul met with the Jerusalem leaders who were former disciples of Jesus. In order to deny that evidence you are in the weak position of denying anything that does not fit with your preconceived notions, and that, my friend, is not objective research, but special pleading. Good luck with that anywhere else.

Only in your own preconceived notions, does Galatians say anything of the sort.

I understand the problem, I do, even in the chapter I'm about to quote from, and maybe you're right about some of what I claimed after all. But in that chapter Paul said this:

Quote:

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

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

12-19-2008, 12:56 AM	#101
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	How about this, Mr. Loftus. Please present your historical Jesus, without making him up. Thank you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.