Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrMacSon · 04-29-2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Josephus and Tacitus are extra-Biblical evidence.

They are just evidence the story of Jesus the Christ had engendered a band of followers
(eg. France, RT (1986). Evidence for Jesus (Jesus Library). Trafalgar Square Publishing. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0-340-38172-8.)

Josephus first passage Antiguities 18 is considered to have been doctored.

Besides, Josephus mentions more than one Jesus, such as Jesus ben Damneus as he does in Antiquities 20:200.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

For that matter, the Gospel of Thomas and 1 Clement are extra-Biblical evidence.

The gospel of Thomas simply has lots of saying in common with the canonical gospels, but without the supernatural claims. It does not offer further evidence for Jesus.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-29-2012, 03:03 PM

I don't see how the supernatural claims are relevant to Jesus. That's no criterion. It sort of goes without saying that none of the supernatural claims are historical.

aa5874 · 04-29-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see how the supernatural claims are relevant to Jesus. That's no criterion. It sort of goes without saying that none of the supernatural claims are historical.

Well, I don't see how arguments for an historical Jesus can be made if virtually all claims about Jesus are non-historical and implausible.

It is NOT a secret that virtually all of gMark is fiction and implausible--from the baptism story to the resurrection.

It is mind boggling how HJers are EAGER to use sources that NOT historically credible.

PhilosopherJay · 04-29-2012, 03:11 PM

Hi Andrew,

Sounds probable. I would have to research the sources to form a real opinion.
I do know that this was a period where there were no defense attorneys and torture was the norm. The normal interrogation in those times went something like this:

Quote:

Magistrate: Did you see her killing anyone?
Servant: Never.
Magistrate: Put him on the rack to see if he's telling the truth.
Servant gets put on rack, screams in pain.
Magistrate: Did you see her killing anyone?
Servant: No.
Bones start to crack.
Servant: Yes.
Magistrate: was it more than one person.
Servant: No
More bones crack.
Servant: Yes.
Magistrate: Was it more than five people?
Servant: Yes.
Magistrate: Was it more than fifty people?
Servant: Yes.
Magistrate: Was it more than five hundred people?
Servant: Yes.
Magistrate: Thank you for your truthful testify. The witness is released. Call the next witness.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

Good point. Thanks.

I do think that poor Elizabeth Bathory was a victim of a political witchhunt. I doubt that she could have killed dozens or hundreds of young women without intervention from the authorities. I think it is more probable that she killed only several women or she was entirely innocent and framed in a witch hunt.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

I agree she probably only killed a few women, probably without premeditation, when she let ill-treatment get out of hand.

Her reputation for, (mostly non-lethal), cruelty allowed her to be framed as a mass killer. That doesn't really make her innocent though.

Andrew Criddle

MrMacSon · 04-29-2012, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see how the supernatural claims are relevant to Jesus. That's no criterion. It sort of goes without saying that none of the supernatural claims are historical.

The only reason the story of the alleged 'Jesus-the-Christ' is historical today is because of the supernatural claims.

The Gospel of Thomas simply shows there were various versions of various stories.

It is intriguing you pick the least significant aspect of my reply to comment on.
What about the significance, or lack of significance, of Josephus or Tacitus?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-29-2012, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see how the supernatural claims are relevant to Jesus. That's no criterion. It sort of goes without saying that none of the supernatural claims are historical.

The only reason the story of the alleged 'Jesus-the-Christ' is historical today is because of the supernatural claims.

That doesn't mean no crucified Jesus ever existed.

Quote:

The Gospel of Thomas simply shows there were various versions of various stories.

It's an independent attestation of historicity.

Quote:

It is intriguing you pick the least significant aspect of my reply to comment on.
What about the significance, or lack of significance, of Josephus or Tacitus?

What about it? I don't disagree with any of that. Yes, Josephus and Tacitus only reflect what Christians were telling them, but what Christians were telling them was that they revered a person who had really existed and been crucified.

MrMacSon · 04-29-2012, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

The only reason the story of the alleged 'Jesus-the-Christ' is historical today is because of the supernatural claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

That doesn't mean no crucified Jesus ever existed.

It suggests he would not have been historical if not for the supernatural claims.

Quote:

[The Gospel according to Thomas] is an independent attestation of historicity.

Simply an attestation to historicity of the story of Jesus and to variations of the story, but not providing proof the central character, Jesus, was real.

Quote:

... what Christians were telling [Josephus & Tacitus] was that they revered a person who had really existed and been crucified.

"really existed" is a bare assertion that is unsubstantiated.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-29-2012, 05:37 PM

Whether it was "substantiated" is immaterial to the the point that they believed it.

All references to Jesus in all early Christian (as well as pagan and Jewish) literature claims to refer to a real person. None of it it claims to refer to a non-historical, or purely celestial figure. Even those hostile to Christianity did not show any awareness of any beliefs that Jesus was not a real person.

I therefore find it more likely than not that the crucifixion of a preacher named Jesus was a real event and that the best explanation for a cult saying they revered a real person who had been crucified is because they revered a real person who had been crucified.

I have not been shown a reason why there is anything implausible about that bare claim, or why it should be dismissed as impossible. What makes it impossible?

MrMacSon · 04-29-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Whether it was "substantiated" is immaterial to the the point that they believed it.

Whether early christians believed the messianic stories told to them, in that messianic age, is irrelevant to whether the particular messiah they were told about was real.

You are essentially applying the "argument from ignorance" fallacy - "there is no proof there was not a real central character, so there was".

There were many people named Jesus at that time, and it is likely significant proportion were messianic figures, and at least one of them were crucified, but that does not make that one or few the basis for central character of the Jesus story we know today.

mountainman · 04-29-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

All references to Jesus in all early Christian (as well as pagan and Jewish) literature claims to refer to a real person.

Utter bullshit. Read the Gnostic Gospels and Acts. Better yet, read the reaction of the heresiologists to these non canonical texts:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photius' BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON

114. [Lucius Charinus, Circuits of the Apostles: Acts of Peter,
Acts of John, Acts of Andrew, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Paul]

Read a book entitled Circuits [1] of the Apostles, comprising the Acts of Peter,
John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, the author being one Lucius Charinus, [2] as
the work itself shows. The style is altogether uneven and strange; the words
and constructions, if sometimes free from carelessness, are for the most part
common and hackneyed; there is no trace of the smooth and spontaneous expression,
which is the essential characteristic of the language of the Gospels and Apostles,
or of the consequent natural grace.

The contents also is very silly and self-contradictory. The author asserts that
the God of the Jews, whom he calls evil, whose servant Simon Magus was, is one God,
and Christ, whom he calls good, another. Mingling and confounding all together,
he calls the same both Father and Son. He asserts that He never was really made man,
but only in appearance; that He appeared at different times in different form
to His disciples, now as a young, now as an old man, and then again as a boy,
now taller, now shorter, now very tall, so that His head reached nearly to heaven.

He also invents much idle and absurd nonsense about the Cross, saying that Christ
was not crucified, but some one in His stead, and that therefore He could laugh
at those who imagined they had crucified Him. He declares lawful marriages to be
illegal and that all procreation of children is evil and the work of the evil one.

He talks foolishly about the creator of demons. He tells monstrous tales of silly
and childish resurrections of dead men and oxen and cattle. In the Acts of St. John
he seems to support the opponents of images in attacking their use.

In a word, the book contains a vast amount of

childish,
incredible,
ill-devised,
lying,
silly,
self-contradictory,
impious, and
ungodly statements,

so that one would not be far wrong in calling it

the source and mother of all heresy.

[1] Or "Travels."
[2] Also Leucius, or Leontius. His date is uncertain,
perhaps in the fifth century A.D.

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

04-29-2012, 03:03 PM	#32
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I don't see how the supernatural claims are relevant to Jesus. That's no criterion. It sort of goes without saying that none of the supernatural claims are historical.

04-29-2012, 05:37 PM	#38
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Whether it was "substantiated" is immaterial to the the point that they believed it. All references to Jesus in all early Christian (as well as pagan and Jewish) literature claims to refer to a real person. None of it it claims to refer to a non-historical, or purely celestial figure. Even those hostile to Christianity did not show any awareness of any beliefs that Jesus was not a real person. I therefore find it more likely than not that the crucifixion of a preacher named Jesus was a real event and that the best explanation for a cult saying they revered a real person who had been crucified is because they revered a real person who had been crucified. I have not been shown a reason why there is anything implausible about that bare claim, or why it should be dismissed as impossible. What makes it impossible?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.