Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 03-18-2007, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

...which is in conflict with the love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, greater love syndrome which by far outweighs this, doesn't it.

You're reading that through modern lenses, not through it's proper context. Much has been written on the topic since.

Chris Weimer · 03-18-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

No. We DON'T reject a priori biblical confirmation. If you think this, then you don't understand the mythicist case.

I've seen you repeat this before - I don't think you understand the mythicist case. Just ask aa what he thinks of the NT canon.

If you'd like to make a case for your special brand of mythicism, whichever it may be, then by all means, label yourself properly. Mythicism is a huge field.

spin · 03-18-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

You're reading that through modern lenses, not through it's proper context. Much has been written on the topic since.

Really?

spin

spin · 03-18-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Bart Ehrman, a professor of history, said three criteria historians use to deal with documents from antiquity include contextual credibility, dissimalarity, and independent attestation. It appears that MJ'ers want evidence beyond all re seasonable doubt, for documents and supporting documents which obviously no longer exist.

I don't know what MJers want, though you seem to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

The conflict you speak of is dissimalarity, which would suggest authentic historical tradition.

Naming something might be the first step in demonstrating a claim has some basis....

spin

Gregg · 03-18-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I've seen you repeat this before - I don't think you understand the mythicist case. Just ask aa what he thinks of the NT canon.

If you'd like to make a case for your special brand of mythicism, whichever it may be, then by all means, label yourself properly. Mythicism is a huge field.

You're right ... not that I don't understand the mythicist case, but that I should identify the mythicist view I subscribe to. So I'll call myself a Doherty mythicist.

Now, since Jesus historicism is an even larger field, I would like to respectfully request that all Jesus historicists label themselves properly. For example, gnosis92 and GakuseiDon are both historicists, but gnosis92 takes the gospels rather literally, while GakuseiDon seems to accept that they could be mostly myth and legend and theology.

aa5874 · 03-18-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Being rejected by mainstream Jews does not negate one's Jewishness.

Well, with your reasoning, it may augment his Jewishness, or should I say, rejection by mainstream Jews is a positive with regards to his Jewishness.

aa5874 · 03-18-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Is there any known independent confirmation of the above figures? And is there any reason to a priori reject biblical confirmation, esp when the NT was written by many different authors, who often disagreed with one another?

The only figure that I have done any research on is the character called by the aliases, Jesus the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, son of man, son of david, Elias, Jeremias, the deceiver, a devil, and the Word. I have been not able to confirm his historicity from biblical or extra-biblical sources.

When authors differ on fundamental issues, then their credibilties are questioned, especially when there is evidence of interpolations, redactions, forgeries and chronological errors. The NT contains multiple events that are unlikely to have occured, most likely improbable.

It serves no purpose for me to accept any statement as credible, especially from the unknown authors of the NT.

Chris Weimer · 03-18-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, with your reasoning, it may augment his Jewishness, or should I say, rejection by mainstream Jews is a positive with regards to his Jewishness.

What?

aa5874 · 03-18-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Flavius Josepheus, Pliny the younger, Tacitus for starters.

It's entirely possible that many other documents such as Q document, signs gospel, cross gospel, even say Pontius Pilate signing off on Jesus execution, are all lost to history.

You are overlooking other inherent problems when the word 'Christ or 'Christian' is used. There were Christians or followers of a non-historical 'Christ'. In Against Heresies by Ireaneus some of these are mentioned. Some Christians were followers of the 'Phantom also called Christ.

Doug Shaver · 03-18-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

The NT and Josepheus state he had "disciples" yet we have no surviving written records of either John the Baptist nor any of his disciples.

You contradict yourself. The New Testament and Josephus are surviving written records. Perhaps you meant to say we have no other surviving written records?

That there are no others is unfortunate, but we have to work with what is available. The question then is whether, given the NT and Josephus, we should consider both, neither, or only one to be historically reliable -- and if only one, then which one.

I consider the gospels to be fiction for various reasons that do not apply to Josephus. That doesn't mean I'm prepared to believe everything Josephus wrote. However, what he said about John the Baptist is not, to my current knowledge, inconsistent with any fact I'm aware of, and so I accept it as evidence that there probably -- not certainly, but probably -- was such a man.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.