Solo

I think, in this case we do not have the luxury of a groundlaying assumption. The gospels assert that Jesus was historical.

Abram and Moses are purely legendary; Jesus on the other hand is said to have interacted with at least two persons of whom we have an undisputed written historical record: John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate. Additionally Peter/Cephas/Simon bar Jona, said to have been a Jesus companion, is attested by Paul.

AFAIUI, that is not how we use the terms on this board, diana. Respectively, HJ and MJ here refer to the belief that Jesus originated in myth or history. Most HJers, including myself, readily accept that most of the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth come from later imagination.

Jiri

diana

Hi, Jiri.

Well...that's what I mean. If you accept the gospels as historically accurate, you cannot begin the study without the a priori assumption that Jesus was also historical.

Purely? Wow. That's quite an assertion.

JtB is undisputed? This is news to me. Of which record do you speak? I'm not familiar with it.

Additionally, the fact that we have a manuscript which claims Jesus spoke to people we have good reason to believe existed is no reason to assume that therefore, Jesus did also. That's like saying we know Jesus walked on water because archaeologists found a boat that was like the one he went fishing in. The conclusion is too far of a leap from the premise.

Now, if we had a manuscript from Pontius Pilate that says he spoke to Jesus, I'd take that as a perfectly reasonable argument in support of HJ. But we don't have that. We have a document from 115AD written by a man born after Jesus' death (Tacitus) who mentions Christians as an example of Nero's cruelty. While I don't think there's any reasonable dispute concerning the authenticity of the text, there is reasonable dispute concerning the source of this writer's information, and reason to believe there were times he didn't check his facts very closely.

So I've noticed. I do think the assumption that everyone knows what we mean can be confusing to some. It's useful to clarify one's terms from time to time.

d

Minimalist

Yeah, yeah. Speaking of cop-outs I have noted that lots of Fundies try to change the subject when their "sacred stories" are being trashed. Congratulations for continuing the trend.

Meanwhile, modern archaeology continues to undermine your bible, and no amount of hiding your head in the sand will change that.

Chris Weimer

How do you know which ancient documents are historical and which are not?

Josephus.

So then should we start with the a priori assumption that no one did unless...what exactly...is found? For the ancient world, all we have are manuscripts for 99% of the population.

We do. We have several.

Why? Please be full on your evidence to back this assertion.

Chris Weimer

To even say such a thing shows your complete ignorance on the topic.

Toto

You might want to run this by the Ev/Cr forum. You should not throw around terms like "hilariously ignorant" if you sincerely think that the HJ theory has anything close to the evidentiary support as the Theory of Evolution. Evolution can be observed in the record of paleontology and in current laboratories (such as the rapid evolution of the AIDS virus). There are hundreds of thousands of data points which all lead to the conclusion that evolution is the best explanation of the current state of affairs, and there is more data coming in all the time. The HJ theory rests on a few manuscripts which could be the product of novelists or forgers, written in a language which no one today speaks fluently.

The creationists have become very adept in covering up their religious motivations by copying the language of other theories that had at one point been treated as bogus or unproven, but were later proven correct. They like to talk about free speech, avoiding scientific dogma, etc. This is just a smoke screen. They really represent acceptance of dogma over science.

Minimalist

The point is that the two supposedly "inerrant" gospels which even bother to deal with the nativity contradict each other as to the date and other details . "Matthew" adds in the magi and the 'slaughter of the innocents,' by Herod the Great, but there is no journey to Bethlehem. There is, however, a side trip to Egypt.

"Luke" concocts the journey and the census as being the reason for it, not to mention the non-existent "world-wide decree" of Augustus. There are no magi, no slaughter, no visit to see the pyramids. Instead the new family drops by Jerusalem and then presumably goes back to Nazareth (which in all likelihood did not even exist in the early first century).

Now, in purely verifiable historical fact, Luke has the advantage...1-0...over Matthew as we know that Quirinius took a census and set off a small revolt in the process. However, the rest of it is faith, not history.

Amaleq13

You don't have to accept the gospels as "historically accurate", you only have recognize that they present prima facie evidence of an historical figure.

MJ arguments procede despite and against that impression while HJ arguments procede accepting it.

Chris Weimer

Just because Doherty contests them doesn't mean anything - Doherty has been shown over and over again that he tortures the Greek language and mangles the Greek philosophy. Even some of Doherty's ardent supporters have acknowledged that he's wrong in some areas.

Finally, it's an argument from authority - you're merely stating that Doherty has contested it, thus we should believe him. Why?

If you're not willing/able to defend your theory against the evidence I submitted, then why aren't you by default acknowledging that I was right?

It's still bunk.

Academic sources are crucial. Anyone can write anything on the internet - that doesn't make it true. Academic sources, especially more modern ones, have a much higher standard than Cosmo magazine.

You've said nothing of antiquity, nor have you showed that Paul by necessity would have done what you said. Cosmo magazine is not an authority on the ancient world.

Moreover, what Paul was doing was delivering a "sermon" in epistle form - the gospels weren't written - what if that was all he knew? What if he was more interested in Jesus' death and that significance (which he obviously is far more than anything else)? In a world where people believe in the supernatural, wouldn't that be of more concern to him? Paul's struggling with sin - the flesh against the spirit - yet Jesus, born of the flesh, somehow manages to overcome - be killed while he's on earth, and then conquered death. Paul was fascinated by that - he doesn't show much interest in the earthly Jesus because he wasn't as important to him. Remember, Paul is an outsider - he only met the risen Christ as "one untimely born", and he had to convince the "so-called Pillars" that he was legit.

Finally, he states over and over again that his gospel came from Christ, not man. What do you make of that statement? Paul's interested in Christ's soteriological impact, and he says he got his news not from man. He's contrasting himself with James the Brother of the Lord and Cephas and the Pillars and the Twelve, which then we should presume to mean that they got their information from man... While we see a lack of earth-based references in Paul, all our other traditions, early ones like Mark/Q/M/L/Papias etc... suggest that there were earth-based references abound, and in particular is tied to Peter.

You know what never made sense to me? That a bowling ball and a baseball fell at the same speed. When I was a child, in third grade or so, we learned that the computer and the baseball would hit the ground at the same time. I always wondered why? Now I understand, having taken physics classes. You, on the other hand, remain skeptical, because you've not learned anything about the classical world, how it operates, and how we interact with it today.

But some mystical religions are founded by real people - how do you personally know which ones are and which ones aren't?

I'll echo Gooch - show me someone who knows Greek and gives the thumbs up to Doherty. Even Richard Carrier confided in me that he didn't wholly agree with Doherty's use of Greek (though for some reason he still thinks something fishy was going on - though what exactly he never did tell me).

First of all, mysticism and mythicism are two totally different subjects. Also, the proposed reconstruction of the historical Jesus is not the same Jesus that many Christians are familiar with. :huh:

History isn't defined by logic - logic is for maths and is found in proofs. The argument from silence is a piece of evidence for something. For what? How is it used? Is it even justified? I don't think so.

Sorry, perhaps I should ignore you if you have nothing substantial to say.

What's your point?

Have you ever taken a Greek class?

Chris Weimer

I finally want to point out to you, gurugeorge, that much of your testimony has been on what you feel. Do you really think that's valid? What makes you special to have your feelings over anything else?