Chris Weimer

How have I lost the argument? I've got a lawyer beating a strawman, and you refusing to address my points. Yeah, a real big loss for me.

mens_sana

Sorry, nothing was said about an a priori existence. In fact, I reject an a priori existence. However, being Christian does not disqualify that person from the argument. It merely means that his position points have to be examined a bit more carefully in order to see if they are, in fact, based upon his a priori. As a point of information though, when I speak of qualified NT scholars in textual matters, I include all of them. When I speak of NT scholars in other circumstances, I speak (usually) of only the secular ones. Perhaps I should be a bit more careful.

Toto

<mod had on> This thread is deteriorating. Please try to avoid chest-thumping and claims of victory or victimization, and stick to a sober discussion of the issues.

Thank you

Spenser

That's a nice shade of pink.

kais

And this is why arguments from analogy piss lawyers off.

Spenser: "If you are so sure that Jesus really was a man and walked the Earth then I'd love for you to tell me where he went and what he actually did (for real) and how you differentiate that from the fictions of the Gospels."

Chris: "Can you tell me where my grandfather went and what he did? If not, then I guess he never existed, huh?"

I agree that Spenser's argument (paraphrased: "If you cannot tell me specifics about Jesus' life, Jesus probably did not exist.") was not a strong one, but Chris' analogy is equally weak as a response.

(1) Chris presents himself as something approaching an expert on NT studies and has looked at most of the available stories about Jesus. Spenser, however, has never even taken an interest in Chris' grandfather. Had he done so, he could have easily responded to Chris' question with facts backed by numerous secondary sources because

(2) The documentary evidence available for each historical figure (Chris' grandfather and Jesus) is in no way comparable. Given a name, anyone can search through newspaper articles, government records, etc..

(3) Assuming that Chris is a human and is not the product of immaculate conception or any other supernatural intervention, the existence of an individual who we would identify as Chris' grandfather is strictly necessary given that Chris exists. There is no historical evidence from the Roman period which could be presented that would necessarily establish the existence of Jesus.

mikem

Hi Bish. I'm a Monty Python fan too.

.

The evidence comes down to determining the wy that Paul uses the phrase "Kata Sarka" according to the flesh. I think this is the keystone to his theory, and if it fails, the case for a mythical Jesus is signifcantly weakened, although not completely refuted. What I think discredits Doherty's theory is that wherever the the phrase is used, it's most natural meaning is "human" i.e born of a woman according to the flesh".


Can we so easily separate the Nativity tales form the rest? I don't think so. They introduce motifs that continue to reappear throughout the gospel accounts. By truth I take it you mean historical? A very good case can be made (and has been made elsewhere) for regarding the gospels as stories based largely on Old Testament themes. Very little of it need be historical.

Philadelphia Lawyer

Jesus and Chris' grandpa are in no way comparable. And Chris is using the example to establish historicity.

This, I do agree with.

Here is where it breaks down. And, it's not that I simply "disagree" with step 2. In step number 2, in the case of Chris' grandpa, we are relying on logic and biology. In step number 2, in the case of Jesus, you and Chris are relying on "hints" from Paul. Do you see why I am objecting to the claim that these two are "parallel" in any way? One provides ironclad proof of existence; the other is an exegesis that is open to reasonable dispute at every step of the way. What purpose is served by suggesting that these two very different (both in kind and in degree of reliability) "proofs" are in any way comparable or "parallel"?

I don't see how asking for the evidence is a "minor point." And Chris is using the comparison to show historicity. He doesn't need to provide evidence of Jesus' actual life (he claims), because he has a case based on "logic" (just as he does with his grandpa). The problem is that he doesn't have a case based on logic, but on debatable Biblical exegesis.

On the larger question of proof of historicity, Chris has made some very interesting statements on this thread:

Somewhere else on the thread, Chris also claims that it is "fallacious" to require evidence about Jesus' life in order to establish his historicity.

Not only is Chris unable to provide any evidence about Jesus' actual life, but he is hostile to the very notion of it. But, in most cases, this is precisely the kind of information we would want before deciding that a person of dubious historicity actually existed. Just this kind of evidence (the "what's" and "about's," as Chris put it, or the "where did he go and what did he do," as Spenser put it) is what is sought by historians trying to find out if Robin Hood or King Arthur really existed. The historians look for nonfictional documentary and archeological evidence of the "what's and about's" of RH and KA's lives. They don't simply parse the legends (as Chris does with the Bible), say that it all fits together better with an Historical RH or KA than without him, and announce "QED."

Some Christians respond to the attack on HJ by asking "Oh yeah, then what is the evidence that Julius Ceasar really existed?" And the question is answered by providing the "what's and about's," the "where he went and what he did," of Ceasar's life. He went to Gaul, Greece and Egypt, he came, saw and conquered. And we know this because of contemporary (nonfictional) writings, inscriptions, coins, etc.

Jesus, just like Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Julius Ceasar, is not Chris Weimer's grandpa. Biology and logic do not prove his existence. Nor does a close reading of the legends associated with him. We need the "what's" and "about's."

Chris has seized on a trivial counterexample (his grandpa) to the typical situation encountered when trying to prove the historicity of a disputed figure. But the logic behind the counterexample does not apply to Jesus. Nor does Chris' Biblical exegesis provide an effective substitute for that logic. Chris states that it is "probable" that Jesus existed. He needs to back that up with evidence about Jesus' life, not with an exegesis of fictional writings, and certainly not with false analogies to trivial counterexamples.

Philadelphia Lawyer

It's not a "strawman." It's a false analogy which you introduced into the conversation.

yalla

mikem

I'm a Monty fan also, like you.
But I cannot agree with this quote of yours:

"The evidence comes down to determining the wy that Paul uses the phrase "Kata Sarka" according to the flesh. I think this is the keystone to his theory, and if it fails, the case for a mythical Jesus is signifcantly weakened, although not completely refuted. What I think discredits Doherty's theory is that wherever the the phrase is used, it's most natural meaning is "human" i.e born of a woman according to the flesh". "

According to F.F.Bruce [not to appeal to authority but to show that alternative explanations of "kata sarka"'s use are possible/plausible/probable] the use of "according to the flesh" by Paul in Romans, is part of a dichotomy, a contrast, where the other half, which immediately follows in Romans [context is important], is ''according to the spirit".

They are 2 bits of an integrated whole. Directly related and each to be seen in comparison and context with the other.

The "flesh'' component is negative.
Sinful, without god, unfinished, mortal and so on.
It is necessary for JC to be thus if he is to be a sacrifice to save humanity, thus he appears in the "likeness'' of flesh. His sacrifice in this appearance of sinful godlessness [of course JC being the son of god is not really sinful, but only assumes that appearance to enable the sacrifice] is what grants salvation...if you believe, have faith.

The "spirit" component is positive.
It includes being with god, "in Christ", it is purity, salvation, everlasting life and so on.
Note that this is all metaphor.
No details of earthly life are given or even implicit unless the reader imports them from later non-Pauline writers. No Mary, Joseph, Nazareth/Bethlehem etc..
In a previous post I tentatively suggested that " born of woman" fits into the negative half of the metaphorical dichotomy.
In the Judaism of that era women are impure, more so than males.
Being "born of woman" adds to the impurity of the sacrificial JC so that the purity of the "spiritual/in Christ'' state can be achieved by his crucifixion, resurrection etc..
Also note that the crucifixion and resurrection themselves need not be real literal physical events. They can be metaphorical.
Paul states that he was crucified, that he died [according to the flesh] and was reborn in the spirit in Christ.

It's metaphor.

cheers
yalla

Ted Hoffman

Could you please list the points?
You claimed that Paul said that the Jews killed Jesus. I refuted that. I have also demonstrated why it is more likely that paul believed that demons killed Jesus.
You questioned whether gods could die - I provided examples.
You have heen assuming that Christ was apotheosized. I have challenged you to support this assumption.

What points do you feel I have left unaddressed. Speak up now. I have a wide open weekend ahead. It will be nice to be presented with a challenge now.