Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-17-2012, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to Diogenes the Cynic,

Quote:

I haven't listened to this particular podcast yet (though I intend to very shortly), but my impression of Price's past opinions is not that he thinks a figure exactly like you describe couldn't have existed, but that if he did, he is completely unrecoverable from Christian mythology

Why would he be not recoverable? Just remove the Christian mythology. That may be over simplistic but, nevertheless, that's the basic idea.

That's easier said than done. It's not as simple as just removing the supernatural aspects. What method can be used to determine what is certainly historical? What method can be used to discern what Jesus certainly said? How can we determine how he perceived himself? These are not questions which can be answered with anything close to certainty.

Quote:

that it would have been a person so far removed from the character of the Gospels as to be (in Price's view) unidentifiable as a substantive HJ.

Even if it was so, that would not prevent his existence.

That depends on what your definition of "his" is.

Bernard Muller · 03-17-2012, 05:09 PM

to aa,

Quote:

Rosa Parks did NOT start the Civil Rights Movement and was NOT ever considered to be the first person in the Civil Rights Movement.

That's my point. You got it!

Quote:

The earliest Jesus story, gMark, does NOT state anywhere that Jesus started a new religion under the name of Christ

Exactly!

Quote:

In gMark, Jesus was NOT human--he walked on water and transfigured.

So myths were added to a human Jesus.

Quote:

In gMark, Jesus did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ.

Maybe "Mark" was acknowledging his disciples did not tell Jesus was Christ.
But wait: In Mk1:1, the author thought Jesus was Christ (also in 9:41, 14:61-62). So "Mark" wanted Jesus to be known as Christ.

Quote:

In gMark, Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be Converted but to REMAIN in Sin.

Hmm, but I think you mean allegedly the Galilean peasants not fully understanding the unexplained parables, instead of Jews generally. But what is your point here? I understood those parables were meant for later Christians, were invented by "Mark", who cared about Gentiles. I have a webpage on that. That was also a way for "Mark" to explain why there were few converts in Galilee: Jesus did not really try!!!

Quote:

There is NO evidence whatsoever from non-apologetic sources that gMark's Jesus did exist

Funny you should say that. You are always using apologetic sources to make your points. And I take Josephus' reference of "the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name is James" as a "shred" of evidence. I see no reason to put it in the scrap pile.

Quote:

The NT is questionable and cannot be PRESUMED to be history

Absolutely right. So let's question the NT, using critical analysis, getting into the bones of it, try to reconstruct, spend years doing so. And if what's left fits well together, explain everything then maybe history can be discovered even if, at the beginning, it is presumed.

stephan huller · 03-17-2012, 05:32 PM

Why do these debates have to go on this familiar cycle. Yes Jesus COULD BE a historical figure who was mythologized. Yet the Christian religion before Luther is rooted in Jesus the God. Jesus the man is a later addition. Whether it be the birth of Jesus on Dec 25th or Mary's conception on March 25th these things were only added after Jesus the God was the basis to the real liturgy. Jesus the God is essential to the Eucharist, Jesus the man makes the Eucharist seem absurd.

Bernard Muller · 03-17-2012, 05:44 PM

to Diogenes,

Quote:

That's easier said than done. It's not as simple as just removing the supernatural aspects.

You are right. That's why I had to spend so much time on it.

Quote:

What method can be used to determine what is certainly historical?

About the same one that Police detectives use for a scene of a crime, with many unreliable witnesses and suspects and pieces of evidence: critical analysis, three steps forward, two steps backwards. From my website:

Quote:

a) Stay always within the historical, social, cultural & religious (ancient) contexts, when studying each event & writing.
b) Acknowledge that people in the 1st/2nd century (most of them illiterate) had some common sense (& religious aspirations) and were living mostly in a secular, "low-tech" (& unscholarly!) world: they thought in real time (their own day to day present).
c) Consider the (early) Christian texts as written by "flesh & blood "persons (and not necessarily scholars!) likely to have human motives (sometimes very obvious), and as addressed to contemporaries. Then research the circumstances surrounding their compositions.
d) Have an all-encompassing view: everything of any pertinence has to be investigated, from all primary sources available, more so the closest (in time) to the facts.
e) Determine with accuracy (and great efforts!) the sequence of events, timing and the dating of writings (that's lacking into many scholarly works), because that provides another dimension, the most crucial one: many (preceding & following) points are considerably affected by the dating & sequencing.
f) Do not charge with some theory/concept (yours or borrowed) because it suits you (unfortunately, agenda-driven works are prevalent nowadays).
g) Sort out the evidence and check it in depth (accuracy, validity, context, correct translation, etc., for each bits), by way of critical analysis. Justify any rejection with good reasons, preferably many of them.
h) Do not ignore "down to earth", obvious, mundane or trivial details (usually considered unworthy of scholarly interest). Do not overlook contradictions and oddities (as you would for the work of a subordinate, as a detective would for a suspect, as a legal officer would for an eyewitness!). Pay attention to "against the grain" and embarrassing bits (they might be telling!).
i) Follow the evidence, stay close to it, allow it to "discipline" & direct you: avoid free intellectual extrapolations & speculations (we have enough of those!).
j) Practice reality checks along the way: avoid absurdities.
k) Stay on the right track, on solid ground; do not hesitate to turn back when a trail is disappearing; explore all options, but remember, only one can be correct (& not necessarily the first one which pops out from the top of your head!).
l) Accept what you discover, rather than decide first what to find & reject.
m) Be scrupulous: "fudging" & "ignoring" NOT allowed (why should I fool myself & my readers? And this website will not advance my career or make money for me!).
n) Reject ill-substantiated assumptions, even if they are widely "swallowed" (beware of "studies" which accept them, either unannounced ("transparent") or with a short introduction!).
o) Look somewhere else if you need long discussions to justify your position.
p) Provide (concisely & accurately) the whole evidence & argumentation for each step (to keep you honest and prevent unproven claims to creep in): each piece of the puzzle must stand on its own.
q) Go back over all the preceding points because later findings are bound to have implications on previous understandings (and vice versa. I never said it was an "auto-pilot" one-way process. Beware of simplistic methodologies!). Examine back everything, including the options you chose along the way (everything has to fit, but keep observing all the points!). Do it over & over, again & again ...

This is what I tried to abide by, but if any one of my readers objects on these points or thinks I do not adhere to them (or missed some other ones), please let me know (but be specific!). Contact me here.

And if, (despite) complying with all the aforementioned, overall & throughout COHERENCE of the reconstruction is achieved, then you succeeded.
If not, well, either it cannot be done (according to the available evidence) OR you went wrong someplace!

Furthermore, this kind of study should not be a vehicle for (or driven by) anti-Christian or pro-Christian propaganda (or bias)! Also, it should not be influenced by any author's peculiar fixation(s), source of income or/and "market" consideration. And beware of those works which use the "historical Jesus" in order to showcase a scholar/professor's field of expertise, such as old-fashioned theology, in low demand otherwise.

Quote:

What method can be used to discern what Jesus certainly said

I do not put too much importance on what he said. I rejected all parables, discourses, just kept a few sayings, because they are representative of what an illiterate Jew, admirer of John the Baptist, would say to illiterate peasants in Galilee (and be remembered!).

Quote:

How can we determine how he perceived himself? These are not questions which can be answered with anything close to certainty.

Not much, humble and of little reputation. In his last year an accidental healer, a hippy type. When approaching Jerusalem, when a group of misguided Jews gave him a royalish welcome, that got into his head. So the cleansing in the Temple. And from that crucifixion.
I think that can be answered with some certainty. Here is my reconstruction, in a few words:
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

aa5874 · 03-17-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

..... In his last year an accidental healer, a hippy type. When approaching Jerusalem, when a group of misguided Jews gave him a royalish welcome, that got into his head. So the cleansing in the Temple. And from that crucifixion.
I think that can be answered with some certainty. Here is my reconstruction, in a few words:
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

You are basically presenting what you imagine and NOT what you found in the written texts.

You are supposed to try and understand the Jesus story but you are inventing stories about Jesus.

gMark's Jesus was NOT like a hippy. gMark's Jesus was like a PHANTOM.

stephan huller · 03-17-2012, 07:31 PM

And where do we find the exclusive religious veneration of Jesus the man before modern Protestantism? It is even more theoretical than the reconstructions of Marcionitism. At least Marcion has ancient witnesses.

outhouse · 03-17-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Not much, humble and of little reputation. In his last year an accidental healer, a hippy type. When approaching Jerusalem, when a group of misguided Jews gave him a royalish welcome, that got into his head. So the cleansing in the Temple. And from that crucifixion.
I think that can be answered with some certainty. Here is my reconstruction, in a few words:
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

just my opinion

but i think your giving to much historicity for things not there, or related to OT prophecy that never happened.

Hippy type, no way. Jesus had more attitude from being a hard working peasant heavily oppressed through roman taxation.

jesus was popular more for his anti-taxation preaching among the poor who were ALL overtaxed, then the religious preaching of coming kingdom of god.

why is it everyone ignores the tax war in Galilee when jesus was young, as well as the fall of the temple due to a tax war. tensions were high jesus whole life in Galilee over taxes and jews knew a revolt ment a certain death. hence the coming kingdom of god was ment and talked about in a mythical afterlife headed their way.

outhouse · 03-17-2012, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And where do we find the exclusive religious veneration of Jesus the man before modern Protestantism? It is even more theoretical than the reconstructions of Marcionitism. At least Marcion has ancient witnesses.

Why pick a poor Galilean jew/failed messiah to deify?

Why place him from jerkwater Nazareth?

Why not realize romans are writing about a jewish teacher and had to write mythically to keep him in competition against other hellenistic mortal men made deities.??

outhouse · 03-17-2012, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Why do these debates have to go on this familiar cycle. Yes Jesus COULD BE a historical figure who was mythologized. Yet the Christian religion before Luther is rooted in Jesus the God. Jesus the man is a later addition. Whether it be the birth of Jesus on Dec 25th or Mary's conception on March 25th these things were only added after Jesus the God was the basis to the real liturgy. Jesus the God is essential to the Eucharist, Jesus the man makes the Eucharist seem absurd.

what about the jewish only movement started by JtB that was taken over by HJ ??

Eucharist is just mythology added later to HJ.

aa5874 · 03-17-2012, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...jesus was popular more for his anti-taxation preaching among the poor who were ALL overtaxed, then the religious preaching of coming kingdom of god.

Please, we are tired of these myth fables that you invent. You have NO source for YOUR anti-taxation Jesus.

We have FOUR Canonized Myth Fables we don't need any more.

In the NT, Jesus paid his taxes and that of at least one of his disciples.

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

03-17-2012, 05:32 PM	#203
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Why do these debates have to go on this familiar cycle. Yes Jesus COULD BE a historical figure who was mythologized. Yet the Christian religion before Luther is rooted in Jesus the God. Jesus the man is a later addition. Whether it be the birth of Jesus on Dec 25th or Mary's conception on March 25th these things were only added after Jesus the God was the basis to the real liturgy. Jesus the God is essential to the Eucharist, Jesus the man makes the Eucharist seem absurd.

03-17-2012, 07:31 PM	#206
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And where do we find the exclusive religious veneration of Jesus the man before modern Protestantism? It is even more theoretical than the reconstructions of Marcionitism. At least Marcion has ancient witnesses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.