Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 06-10-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

This is what I mean - you take the gospels as "literal, gospel truth" and of course you can knock it down. That's not hard. Scholarship had moved on from such pettiness hundreds of years ago. During the 18th century, scholarship first moved into denying the divinity of Jesus, and finding explanations for the miracles. Afterwards, it moved into describing everything as "myth". In modern scholarship, there are the types of higher criticism - form criticism, source criticism, redaction criticism, supported by lower criticism - i.e. textual criticism.

Actually, someone here (I think it was Solo) made IMHO the brilliant observation: "Mythicism: using 19th Century science to destroy Fourth Century beliefs".

spamandham · 06-10-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky

This is not nor should this be a creationist/evolutionist type debate. This should be simply, DID HE EXIST?

There simply isn't enough quality evidence to make a conclusive case one way or the other, IMHO, and probably never will be. All we have about Jesus are highly legendary stories and references. This isn't a case of a bit of poetic license being added to stories that are otherwise plausible, it's a case where we have almost only fantastic stories. How can we possibly hope to extract details of the life of a real person from this? I don't think we really can.

Jesus could have been the son of a carpenter, he could have been a student of John the Baptist, he could have been a wandering preacher, he could have been a rebel rouser, he could have been the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, he could have been the Buddah, he could have been King Tut, or Julius Caesar, or he might not have existed at all. None of these are dramatically more compelling than the others, as far as I can tell.

dog-on · 06-11-2007, 12:43 AM

Instead of responding to the, I'm sorry to say, stupid responses by Chris and Roger, I'll just let the fact that they were unable to produce any solid evidence for their position speak to the state of the "Scholarly Historical Jesus Opinion Society".

I ask again.

Please present the best evidence you have for a historical Jesus.

(The answer is not, JM present your evidence. Based on what has been said here, scholarship holds the HJ postion as the default. I would just like to see the evidence for the default position...)

gurugeorge · 06-11-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can see here the difference between the HJ and evolution. Scientists who study evolution do not just mock and condescend to creationists. They patiently provide masses of scientific details and reasoning, and link to articles that lay out their case and why it has scientific support.

Yes this is the point. If it was such an open-and-shut case, the evidence would have been presented in the very first few posts in this thread.

But it's not - so much of what's presented by both sides in the debate depends on "feel", only HJ-ers don't see it because their position is traditional, they have a huge backlog of arguments and counter-arguments, stretching back through the history of biblical studies, which makes it look like there's some solid, rational backing to what they say, that makes it just obvious. But the philology, the linguistic and textual analysis on their own don't actually tell us whether what we have is a mythologised person or a pure myth. It's not actually obvious in any knock-down fashion.

So condescension and scorn are quite misplaced: both the HJ and MJ positions are possible rational interpretations of the evidence; neither is so ridiculous that it deserves scorn or condescension. It's just that the HJ tradition has been at work longer than the MJ and has had more people sifting through the evidence with that set of background assumptions, for a longer time.

Chris Weimer · 06-11-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Instead of responding to the, I'm sorry to say, stupid responses by Chris and Roger, I'll just let the fact that they were unable to produce any solid evidence for their position speak to the state of the "Scholarly Historical Jesus Opinion Society".

I ask again.

Please present the best evidence you have for a historical Jesus.

(The answer is not, JM present your evidence. Based on what has been said here, scholarship holds the HJ postion as the default. I would just like to see the evidence for the default position...)

How about some more handwaving, eh? Wave all the evidence bye bye because after all this, you still can't deal with it.

Chris Weimer · 06-11-2007, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Jesus could have been the son of a carpenter, he could have been a student of John the Baptist, he could have been a wandering preacher, he could have been a rebel rouser, he could have been the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, he could have been the Buddah, he could have been King Tut, or Julius Caesar, or he might not have existed at all. None of these are dramatically more compelling than the others, as far as I can tell.

If I were to ask you to prove that your mom was not my whore, could you do it to the satisfaction that you require historians to reconstruct Jesus for you? Who was Julius Caesar? He may have been Buddha, or perhaps he was Darth Vader.

Some people really think that they are Jedis. Some people really think that Prince Philip is the messiah. I honestly don't give a flying fuck what compels you, because you haven't dealt with the evidence. You just sit on it and shit. And that's all you're capable of, it seems. Sitting on the evidence, and shitting. Not dealing with it. Not critically examining it. Just saying, "By golly, there's not enough evidence to compel me to believe that Jesus was so and so!"

Bullshit. There's enough evidence, you just can't deal with it. Jesus was Caesar? That's a laugh. Oh I'm sure, though, that you'll twist the evidence to fit your fanciful theory.

You're not even trying anymore. You just handwaved everything goodbye, said you don't want to deal with it. When you refuse to deal critically with the evidence, you've basically said, "Goodbye."

gurugeorge · 06-11-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The evidence is obvious - we have the New Testament gospels which attest to that, Paul which attests to that, and the whole Christian tradition which attests to that.

No Chris, they attest to a God-man, they don't attest to some historical Jesus of the scholars.

They "attest" to a possible historical Jesus only in the secondary, scholarly sense - in the sense that biblical scholars have extracted sundry possible historical Jesi from what is actually the testament of a God-man.

dog-on · 06-11-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I think that Paul's epistles arguably show that Paul believed that Jesus Christ: (1) lived on earth, (2) died in the near past, (3) was crucified in Jerusalem. After Christ died, he became a heavenly saviour.

Hi Dog-on. Though I'd prefer a formal debate to concentrate on those 3 specific topics (to avoid fracturing the debate by trying to match with the Gospels, etc), if you want to do this here (and I suppose this is the "HJ, lay your cards on the table" thread so it is appropriate), I'll start off with the evidence for "(3) Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem".

Dog-on, these are the verses that appear to connect Jesus with Jerusalem:

First, Paul says that "Christ crucified" is a stumbling block:

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness

Then, he quotes scriptures to say that the stumbling block was in Zion (Jerusalem):

Rom 9:32 For they [Israel] stumbled at that stumbling stone.
Rom 9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame".

Next, he quotes scriptures to say that the Deliverer will come out of Zion, in terms of a new covenant. This strongly identifies the "Deliverer" with Jesus:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins".

Finally, in Galatians 4:4 Paul implies that Jesus was Jewish ("born under the law"), and in 1 Cor 5:7 Paul says "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed." The Passover celebration was held in Jerusalem.

Putting all of these together, I think the best reading of this is that Paul believed that Jesus was Jewish and was crucified in Jerusalem.

What are the alternatives?
(1) Someone suggested that Paul was talking about the Heavenly Jerusalem. But for this reading to be valid, it would have to mean that Satan actually entered the Heavenly Jerusalem and crucified Jesus there, which seems very unlikely. At least, I've never seen anyone present evidence of such. Satan is the god of "this world" -- the Heavenly Jerusalem is not part of this world.
(2) Someone else mentioned that Paul got the information from scriptures, therefore it isn't historical. Even if true, this is only one leg of three. It doesn't avoid the implication that Paul seems to believe that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.
(3) Could it be allegorical? The context doesn't seem to support it. Paul clearly believes that Jesus was crucified and was a deliverer. The context doesn't support an allegorical interpretation in those passages above.

I think that the most natural reading is that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. (As I said, at this stage I just want to concentrate on Paul's letters. I don't care whether this matches the Gospels or other letters or not). What do you think?

The demiurge and his minions did in JC, not Satan. (You know the story...).

If "Paul" really believed that Jesus was recently crucified in Jerusalem, why doesn't he just say so?

Your interpretation of Zion may be correct, but just as likely may be incorrect (and not to be unexpected where a mystery religion is concerned).This ambiguity serves to reduce any value of these statements as far as specific evidence is concerned. To know "Paul's" real meaning, you would have to ask Paul himself.

For Galatians, I would have to go with the radicals. Gal. 4,4 has been tampered with to conform it to the second century (?) catholic position. (Maybe Iraneaus did it saying, "Take that, you apostle of the heretics...", or something to that effect)!?!?!).

I always found this passage to be quite interesting:

25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Doesn't this passage tell us that all of Paul's gospel comes from scripture and revelations? Where is the allusion to the recently executed son of a carpenter?

I especially like the little crack at the demiurge..("the only wise God")...

A much clearer statement, by Paul, than the Zion bits you proposed. Wouldn't you agree?

dog-on · 06-11-2007, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Instead of responding to the, I'm sorry to say, stupid responses by Chris and Roger, I'll just let the fact that they were unable to produce any solid evidence for their position speak to the state of the "Scholarly Historical Jesus Opinion Society".

I ask again.

Please present the best evidence you have for a historical Jesus.

(The answer is not, JM present your evidence. Based on what has been said here, scholarship holds the HJ postion as the default. I would just like to see the evidence for the default position...)

How about some more handwaving, eh? Wave all the evidence bye bye because after all this, you still can't deal with it.

My hands are doing this :huh: and not this :wave:

What evidence, in your mind at least, do you think I am not dealing with? The only evidence I recall you having presented is the Tacticus reference. I said that this is, at best, hear-say based on the testimony of christians. I then asked if this was the best evidence you had, to which you proceded to insult me. I, therefore, assumed that this was indeed your best evidence and, being what it is, am at a loss as to why you put such faith in it...

dog-on · 06-11-2007, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The evidence is obvious - we have the New Testament gospels which attest to that, Paul which attests to that, and the whole Christian tradition which attests to that.

No Chris, they attest to a God-man, they don't attest to some historical Jesus of the scholars.

They "attest" to a possible historical Jesus only in the secondary, scholarly sense - in the sense that biblical scholars have extracted sundry possible historical Jesi from what is actually the testament of a God-man.

Thank you.

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

06-11-2007, 12:43 AM	#303
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Instead of responding to the, I'm sorry to say, stupid responses by Chris and Roger, I'll just let the fact that they were unable to produce any solid evidence for their position speak to the state of the "Scholarly Historical Jesus Opinion Society". I ask again. Please present the best evidence you have for a historical Jesus. (The answer is not, JM present your evidence. Based on what has been said here, scholarship holds the HJ postion as the default. I would just like to see the evidence for the default position...)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.