Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 01-04-2006, 11:44 PM

Ted, I think the best positive evidence of fabrication is the multitude of quote mines from the HB in the construction of the gospels.

It simply isn't enough in my mind to debate about the existance of "somebody who preached".

By far the most important "proof" of Jesus as the messiah for Christians is the claim that he fulfilled prophecy.

Here we have the criminal bringing to us the murder weapon with his fingrprints and bloody DNA all over it - and instead we want to ignore it. The means.

The motive is so obvious. The opportunity is enough time distant from the alleged events so that contrary witnesses cannot be called.

Guilty.

TedM · 01-05-2006, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Ted, I think the best positive evidence of fabrication is the multitude of quote mines from the HB in the construction of the gospels.

It simply isn't enough in my mind to debate about the existance of "somebody who preached".

By far the most important "proof" of Jesus as the messiah for Christians is the claim that he fulfilled prophecy.

Here we have the criminal bringing to us the murder weapon with his fingrprints and bloody DNA all over it - and instead we want to ignore it. The means.

The motive is so obvious. The opportunity is enough time distant from the alleged events so that contrary witnesses cannot be called.

Guilty.

I guess I should have stated that the HJ I'm talking about didn't have to fulfill prophecy. A man could have preached, been known as a miracle worker, and been crucified, without fulfilling the various messiac passages in the HB. As for my list, I think you must be referring to references to the HB that support the idea that the messiah would/could be a teacher, would/could be a miracle worker, and would/could be crucified. Is that correct? If so, which uses by the NT writers would apply most directly as support for those 3?

jakejonesiv · 01-05-2006, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

A problem with TedM's proposition is that it's tautological. The Jesus of Christianity, by definition, was a teacher etc. The J of C, BY DEFINITION, performed miracles. And the J of C, BY DEFINITION, was crucified etc.

So what he's really asking us to do is to provide evidence that the Jesus of Christianity was invented. Those "areas" don't mean much, except that any figure who DIDN'T qualify in all three of them wouldn't pass muster as the Jesus of Christianity. But there must be other criteria as well if we are to consider the historicity of the Jesus of Christianity. For example, a Jesus who had disciples, performed miracles, and who was crucified in ALEXANDRIA, would not qualify.

Jake's criteria still don't illuminate the matter much as long as we take each characteristic separately.

There well might have been a man named Jesus with disciples but who never ventured out of Galilee. Would he qualify as "the historical Jesus"? I don't think so.

There might have been a Jesus who was said to have performed public miracles, but who did so over a period of 20 years and whose father was a Roman soldier. Would he qualify as the historical Jesus? I don't think so.

There might have been a criminal named Jesus who was crucified in 100 BCE. Would he qualify?

There might have been a whole team of cynic preachers and disciples wandering Galilee, and several might have been named Jesus, it being the most popular name in Judea during that period. Would they qualify as historical Jesuses on that basis alone, Jake?

You have to look at the whole picture. Establishing three discrete criteria doesn't get us to the real question, because the biographies of Jesus included a number of significant events and behaviors. Just three won't do, and they can't be treated independently. (Nobody really cares whether my four hypothetical Jesuses existed, except insofar as they may have served as prototypes for portions of the legend.) Any discussion of the historicity of Jesus has to be about a figure who closely resembles the man described in the NT in many respects.

By the way, I agree that the impossibility of miracles is evidence that the gospels were invented.

Additional evidence of invention is the fact that the gospel authors made a number of errors regarding the geography of Judea. If their stories were factual, they would not have had Jesus following those impossible itineraries.

A third area consists of a number of questions regarding the Roman and Jewish law and practices surrounding Jesus' trial and crucifixion. Several scholars (Perrin, Ludemann) have questioned whether the Passion accounts are late 1st or early 2nd century formulations primarily intended to reflect the state of affairs between Jews and Christians. In any case, inaccuracies, especially polemical ones, in portraying those laws and customs would certainly be evidence of invention.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Arguments from Silence and Lack of Evidence. Those are still the strongest reasons for believing that Jesus was a mythical figure. After all, why SHOULD we believe that a man existed for whom there is such meager attestation by his contemporaries, including those who worshipped a figure (also named "Jesus") who was supposedly executed in a similar manner?

Thanks Didymus. That brings a clarity to the discusssion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Eh?

Surely you're kidding. Our OT is similar to the Septuagint; can you glean the "facts" about Jesus from it? If so, one wonders why the gospels were written!

Didymus

I am quite serious. Please remember the Christians used the Septuagint to a much larger extent than the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus is Iesous in NT Greek and Joshua is Iesous in the LXX. To these early Christians, Jesus and Joshua were identical, a fact obscured by most translations.

Justin Martyr has an interesting passage in Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXV .

Jake Jones IV

TedM · 01-05-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

There nothing intrinsically wrong with Arguments from Silence and Lack of Evidence. Those are still the strongest reasons for believing that Jesus was a mythical figure. After all, why SHOULD we believe that a man existed for whom there is such meager attestation by his contemporaries, including those who worshipped a figure (also named "Jesus") who was supposedly executed in a similar manner?

Yet, it seems that many mythicists have no problem with the idea that among the Jews there were teachers, and people designated as miracle workers, and people crucified during Jesus' day. Why is it such a stretch to believe that one person could have been all three? And why if these were fairly common would a person expect more mention of this Jesus than another person who did one or more of these things?

It seems to me that given the popularity of the Christian Jesus we might have some evidences of invention against the three basic claims for him to supplement the arguments from silence. That's what I'm looking for here.

ted

Toto · 01-05-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Yet, it seems that many mythicists have no problem with the idea that among the Jews there were teachers, and people designated as miracle workers, and people crucified during Jesus' day. Why is it such a stretch to believe that one person could have been all three? And why if these were fairly common would a person expect more mention of this Jesus than another person who did one or more of these things?

But we don't think that the Romans would have crucified a mere teacher without a military following. People were crucified for political agitation.

Quote:

It seems to me that given the popularity of the Christian Jesus we might have some evidences of invention against the three basic claims for him to supplement the arguments from silence. That's what I'm looking for here.

ted

The Christian Jesus does not seem to have been popular or noteworthy in the first century, so I'm not sure what this means.

But you have the basic evidences of invention - the reliance on the LXX for themes with no indication of an undelying history. Are you looking for a sworn statement by Mark that he made it all up? The 2nd - 3rd century church made it a requirement to believe that these stories really happened. Why would they preserve any documentation to the contrary?

TedM · 01-05-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But we don't think that the Romans would have crucified a mere teacher without a military following. People were crucified for political agitation.

Ok, I see that as a possible argument. To me it isn't a strong one at all by itself, since there is no good reason to assume the Romans cared that much which Jews they crucified and which ones they didn't. To make it strong, you have to add in the arguments for fictional details of the crucifixion trial. Would you agree?

Quote:

The Christian Jesus does not seem to have been popular or noteworthy in the first century, so I'm not sure what this means.

Jesus, whether mythical or historical, was influential in the 1st century. How much is a matter of debate. The greater the influence, the greater the likelihood of evidence one can use to illustrate or argue for invention. Was the influence great enough for that to happen? I don't know. That's what I'm looking for.

Quote:

But you have the basic evidences of invention - the reliance on the LXX for themes with no indication of an undelying history. Are you looking for a sworn statement by Mark that he made it all up?

No, just what folks consider to be the strongest arguments. Your mention of the reliance on the LXX is along the lines, but it is too broad a statement for me to do much with. An Elijah-Elisha influence or OT influence in Mark is a step in the right direction, but I'd prefer details since many of the passages I've looked at only have a weak link. It is however, further limited in that it can be used to argue for invention of specific elements, as opposed to the general basic idea. If ALL of Mark were clearly based on OT passages, that would be IMO a strong argument. Paul's POSSIBLE mention of crucifixion by non-humans would also be along the lines of what I'm looking for.

Quote:

The 2nd - 3rd century church made it a requirement to believe that these stories really happened. Why would they preserve any documentation to the contrary?

This is an argument for the reasonableness for silence, so it isn't what I'm looking for although it may be a good argument.

thanks for being patient with me on this,

ted

jakejonesiv · 01-05-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Yet, it seems that many mythicists have no problem with the idea that among the Jews there were teachers, and people designated as miracle workers, and people crucified during Jesus' day. Why is it such a stretch to believe that one person could have been all three? And why if these were fairly common would a person expect more mention of this Jesus than another person who did one or more of these things?

It seems to me that given the popularity of the Christian Jesus we might have some evidences of invention against the three basic claims for him to supplement the arguments from silence. That's what I'm looking for here.

ted

Ted,

The gospel tales stayed in a great state of fluidity until well into the second half of the second century. The works of Josephus could well have influenced them.

There was a man named Jesus who at the Jewish festivals pronounced a prophetic doom and warning on Jerusalem.

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people! ... the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes."

When brought before the rulers, he would not defend himself. The Roman procurator had him whipped till his bones were laid bare; but did not wish to execute him because he thought Jesus was mad. Josephus, Wars 4.5.3

There was a certain Jesus son of Sapphias who was considered seditious from the Roman point of view. He took about with him certain Galileans when engaged in his "mischief." Life of Josephus, 12.

Jesus, the leader of the band of Galileans, was betrayed by one of his followers, and when he was seized, his followers ran away. Life 22.

Three men were crucified by the Romans. Josephus son of Matthias (Joseph of Arimanthea?) begged for bodies. Two died but one lived. Life of Flavius Josephus, 75.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm

Turning to Cassius Dio, the King of the Jews was bound to a cross and flogged, and afterwards executed. Roman History, Book XLIX chapter 22 section 3-6. The King was Antigonus and Roman in charge was Mark Antony. This occured about 37 BCE.

I have barely scratched the surface. Does all this make you feel warm and fuzzy about the gospel story? Not me. It indicates that the gospel compilers incorporated many diverse elements, and indicates the events in the gospels are fictional.

Jake Jones IV

Koyaanisqatsi · 01-05-2006, 01:13 PM

I think this phrase is what is most puzzling about this "field" of study, if you will: "the basic claims about Jesus as a historical person are not credible."

It doesn't make any difference at all if a myth was formed around a real person or not; the myth is a myth always and forever.

Did a radical Rabbi named Jesus (or Frank, or Schlomo) exist and was that person crucified by the Romans for sedition (which would have been the only reason, beside murder)? Who cares?

Did a radical Rabbi named Jesus walk on water, heal the sick through divine providence, resurrect bodily from death thereby proving him to be the Lord God incarnate, Savior of All Mankind? Obviously not, as that nonsense is little more than childish gibberish.

But the odd thing about childish gibberish is that humans can be manipulated into believing it is true. It cannot possibly be true no matter how hard someone wants it to be true, but brainwashing reconfigures critical thinking processes and voila; that which could not possibly be true is unquestionably true and here's your milkbone good doggy.

So, while admirable you're looking for reason within disreason, it is entirely irrelevant. The myth is what is true to cult members; the historical person is not.

:huh:

jakejonesiv · 01-05-2006, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Jack's answer below includes an argument from silence that I'm not interested in, followed by an argument that isn't from silence which is like what I have in mind:

It doesn't really address whether that Jesus was a teacher, known as a miracle worker, or crucified, so I'm not sure what to do with it, but if he didn't exist as a human at all, I guess it implies that he was none of the three.

ted

Hi Ted,

Jesus is simply not portrayed as a preacher or miracle worker in the Pauline material. To object that this is an argument from silence simply begs the question, and I think a bit unfair on your part. There is nothing to be gleened in this regard from this source, and that is just stating a fact.

Since two out of three of your items cannot be addressed from a significant portion of the alleged source material on Jesus, perhaps you have focused on the wrong things. :huh:

Jake Jones IV

TedM · 01-05-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Ted,

The gospel tales stayed in a great state of fluidity until well into the second half of the second century. The works of Josephus could well have influenced them.

There was a man named Jesus who at the Jewish festivals pronounced a prophetic doom and warning on Jerusalem.

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people! ... the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes."

When brought before the rulers, he would not defend himself. The Roman procurator had him whipped till his bones were laid bare; but did not wish to execute him because he thought Jesus was mad. Josephus, Wars 4.5.3

There was a certain Jesus son of Sapphias who was considered seditious from the Roman point of view. He took about with him certain Galileans when engaged in his "mischief." Life of Josephus, 12.

Jesus, the leader of the band of Galileans, was betrayed by one of his followers, and when he was seized, his followers ran away. Life 22.

Three men were crucified by the Romans. Josephus son of Matthias (Joseph of Arimanthea?) begged for bodies. Two died but one lived. Life of Flavius Josephus, 75.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm

Turning to Cassius Dio, the King of the Jews was bound to a cross and flogged, and afterwards executed. Roman History, Book XLIX chapter 22 section 3-6. The King was Antigonus and Roman in charge was Mark Antony. This occured about 37 BCE.

I have barely scratched the surface. Does all this make you feel warm and fuzzy about the gospel story? Not me. It indicates that the gospel compilers incorporated many diverse elements, and indicates the events in the gospels are fictional.

Jake Jones IV

Interesting stuff Jake. Thanks for sharing.

ted

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

01-04-2006, 11:44 PM	#21
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Ted, I think the best positive evidence of fabrication is the multitude of quote mines from the HB in the construction of the gospels. It simply isn't enough in my mind to debate about the existance of "somebody who preached". By far the most important "proof" of Jesus as the messiah for Christians is the claim that he fulfilled prophecy. Here we have the criminal bringing to us the murder weapon with his fingrprints and bloody DNA all over it - and instead we want to ignore it. The means. The motive is so obvious. The opportunity is enough time distant from the alleged events so that contrary witnesses cannot be called. Guilty.

01-05-2006, 01:13 PM	#28
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	I think this phrase is what is most puzzling about this "field" of study, if you will: "the basic claims about Jesus as a historical person are not credible." It doesn't make any difference at all if a myth was formed around a real person or not; the myth is a myth always and forever. Did a radical Rabbi named Jesus (or Frank, or Schlomo) exist and was that person crucified by the Romans for sedition (which would have been the only reason, beside murder)? Who cares? Did a radical Rabbi named Jesus walk on water, heal the sick through divine providence, resurrect bodily from death thereby proving him to be the Lord God incarnate, Savior of All Mankind? Obviously not, as that nonsense is little more than childish gibberish. But the odd thing about childish gibberish is that humans can be manipulated into believing it is true. It cannot possibly be true no matter how hard someone wants it to be true, but brainwashing reconfigures critical thinking processes and voila; that which could not possibly be true is unquestionably true and here's your milkbone good doggy. So, while admirable you're looking for reason within disreason, it is entirely irrelevant. The myth is what is true to cult members; the historical person is not. :huh:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.