Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 02-21-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...Agreed, the absence of evidence is not a problem. ...

And here, it seems to me, we have the crux of the issue. The apologetic HJ'ers come here expecting the MJ'ers, who are skeptical of the HJ for whatever manifold reasons they may hold, to simply forget the scientific underpinnings of any objective investigation into the matter.

Sorry, arnoldo, but the absence of evidence is a huge problem for the HJ, a problem that makes it difficult if not impossible to even justify an hypothesis that Jesus is, in fact, historical. In science, one needs to have previously generated evidence upon which to base a proper hypothesis. And one needs to have a database of information that is itself not corrupted, or indeed, not corruptible. Another problem for those who would stipulate a HJ.

That you, and others here and elsewhere do not seem to appreciate this demonstrates a lack of understanding of what scientific investigation is all about. On the other hand, a true and objective scientific approach to the issue is not traditionally done, is it? One certainly doesn't see any trace of such an approach for 99.9% of the Biblical scholars who have worked so assiduously over the centuries to promote and glorify the fabulously ornate house of cards that is (the Christian) religion.

While the absence of evidence is a HUGE problem, it is also one which is easily rectified. All one needs is a single reliable artifact which establishes the historicity of Jesus.

This is one atheist who is very hostile to religion who nevertheless would welcome such a fact, as readily as I would welcome an unambiguous demonstration from any living god they He or She actually exists. Sadly, it seems that like all the previous versions of well-described and widely-worshiped Godheads eventually rejected by humanity, the Bible gives a clear and richly-detailed testimony about yet another entity who gives absolutely no indication that it has ever existed.

All of this works against ApostateAbe's intangible 'relative probability scale', because the burden of proof for the HJ requires a lot more substance than anything that might be sussed out of an inherently-incoherent heavily-redacted internal document of the Christian religion.

The HJ hypothesis is almost as much of a non starter as the God Hypothesis itself- without evidence they both fail before they take their first step. Which means that the non historicity of Jesus Christ should be assumed as true until some real evidence is unearthed to disprove it. Just like Noah, Moses, and a hundred other well-limned personages from the Biblical text who are now assumed to be fictional.

Zaphod, welcome. The way I see it, anyone who makes a proposition has the burden of proof. If an advocate makes a good case that the proposition is more probable than than all of the competing explanations, then he or she is the winner. This means that there is no "default" position. There is no starting position that stands until someone else comes along with smoking-gun evidence to strike it down. Instead, we simply believe the most probable explanations out there.

I differ with the view that the lack of evidence is not relevant. A huge characteristic that underlays all debates of ancient history is the fact that we have only a handful of documents to make our judgments. On a particular topic that would be historically obscure, we may have just one relevant document. In part, this means that passing mentions of people, for example, like "James, the Lord's brother," is very much magnified in importance, and it can very easily tip the scales between one explanation and another.

When people come from a familiarity with science, and into historical studies, they are often shocked.

In science, all of the data is objective, observable, quantifiable, and testable. In historical studies of the ancient world, particularly the origins of religions, almost all of the data is linguistic writing, which means that the input data is completely subjective, with the same amount of ambiguities as religious language of today. Moreover, the claims made in the writings are often not eyewitness testimony, meaning they can be based on myths. They have been potentially interpolated by copyists. We don't know the provenance. Often, we don't even know exactly who wrote them.

What does this mean? It means that almost anything is possible. And, anyone can make an otherwise ridiculous claim seem likely to outsiders, even after some debate, through a series of ad hoc explanations of data that otherwise contradicts the theory. It science, that doesn't happen. In history, it is commonplace.

Now, I will give you my summary of evidence for a historical Jesus.

Paul's writings of meeting James, the brother of Jesus, and Cephas, also known as the Apostle Peter, in the letter to the Galatians.
The cult-leader characteristics of Jesus and the apocalyptic prophecies in the synoptic gospels due before "this generation" dies, expected of a human cult leader but not expected of a myth.
The historical pattern of religions, seemingly matching Christianity, being started by living human leaders who are then glorified in religious myth.
The historical background details surrounding Jesus that the gospels apparently got correct: John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, the Passover, the Temple of Jerusalem, the Valley of Hinnom, Jewish laws, and especially the existence of the otherwise-unknown town of Nazareth.
No references to Jesus or anyone much like him are found prior to the first century.

The second item is something I take to be very relevant evidence. See my thread, Jesus the apocalyptic cult leader and the checklist of cult characteristics.

aa5874 · 02-21-2010, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Furthermore, for whatever reason, the gospel of Thomas is generally dated to the year 100 CE, and the gospel of John is generally dated to the year 90 CE, so it is just a little more unlikely that John sourced from Thomas.

Chapter 21 of gJohn appear to have been written after the writings attributed to Tertullian.

This is "Against Praexus" attributed to Tertullian where he implied that gJohn terminated at John 20.31

Quote:

......Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, “that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?”

See http://www.newadvent.org

There appears to have been no John 21 up to at least the end of the 2nd century, or the beginning of the 3rd century.

And it is rather pointless using gJohn as an historical account of Jesus as a man when gJohn is ablout the WORD who was equal to God and was the Creator of all things.

The very first verse in gJohn introduces Jesus as a God.
John1.1-3&14

Quote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

2.The same was in the beginning with God.

3.All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made......

14. And the WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us.....

Again there is no history in the NT for an historical Jesus, the so-called prophecies of Jesus regarding the conflagration was lifted out of the Septuagint or Hebrew scripture written hundreds of years before Jesus.

The words of Jesus at his supposed trial or before the Sanhedrin was that the Sanhedrin would see the "Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven" but these words of Jesus appear to have been PARROTED from Daniel 7.13,

Quote:

I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the Son of man came in the clouds of heaven..

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I would also like to emphasize that the passage of 2 Peter 3:3-8 should be taken as further reinforcement of my interpretation: Jesus predicted a total apocalypse before "this generation" passes away and before "some of those standing here" taste death. The prophecy did not come true, Christians knew it, so they had to spin excuses for it, as seen in John 21:20-24 and 2 Peter 3:3-8.

Now, even a Church writer claimed 2 Peter was NOT authentic and did not belong to the Canon.

This is found in a writing called "Church History" 3.

Quote:

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work.

But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon, yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.

Your sources, 2 Peter and John 21, for the words of Jesus are admitted to be non-authentic or a forgery of an entire book and a whole chapter.

gurugeorge · 02-21-2010, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And, conversely, there are mythicists who seem to have relatively positive feelings about some aspects of Christianity.

Count me in there. Like Freke & Gandy, I actually think there are some aspects of Christianity that are beautiful and true - as myths, mystical apophthegms (taking "mysticism" in the sense Sam Harris would) and profound philosophical insights (as in modern theology).

So yeah, red herring.

aa5874 · 02-21-2010, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Now, I will give you my summary of evidence for a historical Jesus.[LIST][*]Paul's writings of meeting James, the brother of Jesus, and Cephas, also known as the Apostle Peter, in the letter to the Galatians.

This has already been shown to be worthless. No-one can can even confirm the existence of the Pauline writer, Peter, Cephas or James in the 1st century and Papias, a supposed early Church writer claimed that JAMES the apostle was the son of an aunt of Jesus.

You simply cannot assume unknown people existed then assume that Jesus existed based on flawed assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The cult-leader characteristics of Jesus and the apocalyptic prophecies in the synoptic gospels due before "this generation" dies, expected of a human cult leader but not expected of a myth.

There is no evidence that can show that it was not the writer who was himself apocalyptic and wrote a story using a God/man character to say that the world was coming to an end.

After all, all the so-called mis-interpretations of the Septuagint was from the author himself. It is hardly likely that Jesus after found to be a false prophet and a blasphemer would have been worshiped as a God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The historical pattern of religions, seemingly matching Christianity, being started by living human leaders who are then glorified in religious myth.

Your statement is not really true. Jesus believers did not and do not glorify men as Gods. Jesus believers have consistently for hundreds of years have vehemently opposed the worship of men as Gods.

Please read all the Church writings from the 2nd century to this very day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The historical background details surrounding Jesus that the gospels apparently got correct: John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans, the Passover, the Temple of Jerusalem, the Valley of Hinnom, Jewish laws, and especially the existence of the otherwise-unknown town of Nazareth.

The historical details about John the Baptist, Pilate, Herod, the Pharisees, Sadducees, the Passover, the Temple of Jerusalem can be found in the writings Josephus.

It cannot be shown that the writers of the Jesus stories did not use the writings of Josephus.

The historical details of other people or description of places has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that there is no historical details about Jesus except that he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

No references to Jesus or anyone much like him are found prior to the first century.

You won't find any external credible sources of Jesus Christ as just a man either before the 1st century or up to this very day. Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and John 1 show the origin of Jesus Christ the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God and the Virgin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The second item is something I take to be very relevant evidence. See my thread, Jesus the apocalyptic cult leader and the checklist of cult characteristics.

Your apocalyptic Jesus is the product of guesswork and would not have been worshiped as a God. Jesus believers do not worship men as Gods. Jesus believers did not worship Roman Emperors as Gods.

The abundance of evidence clearly depict Jesus as a God and that is the fundamental reason why Jesus was worshiped as a God because he was NOT known or believed to be just a man.

Rick Sumner · 02-21-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Count me in there. Like Freke & Gandy, I actually think there are some aspects of Christianity that are beautiful and true - as myths, mystical apophthegms (taking "mysticism" in the sense Sam Harris would) and profound philosophical insights (as in modern theology).

This does nothing to answer the very simple yes or no question either. I didn't offer comments on the motives of all mythicists, I asked a specific question about whether it is reasonable to suggest that some have a given motive.

Quote:

So yeah, red herring.

One must wonder if I'm the only one posting who knows what the term means. If it's anything, it's an ad hominem, though here it doesn't even qualify as that.

arnoldo · 02-21-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

...Agreed, the absence of evidence is not a problem. ...

And here, it seems to me, we have the crux of the issue. The apologetic HJ'ers come here expecting the MJ'ers, who are skeptical of the HJ for whatever manifold reasons they may hold, to simply forget the scientific underpinnings of any objective investigation into the matter.

Sorry, arnoldo, but the absence of evidence is a huge problem for the HJ, a problem that makes it difficult if not impossible to even justify an hypothesis that Jesus is, in fact, historical. In science, one needs to have previously generated evidence upon which to base a proper hypothesis. And one needs to have a database of information that is itself not corrupted, or indeed, not corruptible. . .

We currently have absence of evidence of how life actually began on earth (was it due to clay theory, RNA theory, hydrothermal vents, exogenesis,etc) yet it is not considered a problem. In the same way we don't have absolute evidence of how Christianity began. There are a tremendous amount of Early Christian Writings beginning in the first century onward which gives us an understanding how Christianity began. Can all of these writing be discounted as myth or are parts of it historical?

arnoldo · 02-21-2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . . The abundance of evidence clearly depict Jesus as a God and that is the fundamental reason why Jesus was worshiped as a God because he was NOT known or believed to be just a man.

This is stating the obvious. FYI, christians in the first century onward also believed that He rose from the dead and that they would also do likewise one day.

Toto · 02-21-2010, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Count me in there. Like Freke & Gandy, I actually think there are some aspects of Christianity that are beautiful and true - as myths, mystical apophthegms (taking "mysticism" in the sense Sam Harris would) and profound philosophical insights (as in modern theology).

This does nothing to answer the very simple yes or no question either. I didn't offer comments on the motives of all mythicists, I asked a specific question about whether it is reasonable to suggest that some have a given motive.

It's not reasonable.

Christians base their religion on the existence of certain historical events. Most of them recite a creed every Sunday in which they profess to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and was crucified under Pontius Pilate and after 3 days rose from the dead.

Those opposed to Christianity do not take an oath of any sort and need not oppose any or all of the Nicene Creed. Proving the existence of a historical Jesus would not prove that Christianity is either true or good or useful. Proving that Jesus was merely human would negate Christianity for many believers.

So there is no symmetry of positions.

Quote:

So yeah, red herring.

One must wonder if I'm the only one posting who knows what the term means. If it's anything, it's an ad hominem, though here it doesn't even qualify as that.

The common meaning of "red herring" is "any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue." For example, if the question is whether Jesus existed, or whether mythicism is a better explanation of the data, a charge that mythicists just hate America or Christianity or share 6 irrelevant characterists with creationists is a diversion.

Toto · 02-21-2010, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

.... There are a tremendous amount of Early Christian Writings beginning in the first century onward which gives us an understanding how Christianity began. Can all of these writing be discounted as myth ...?

Yes, they can be.

Rick Sumner · 02-21-2010, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It's not reasonable.

So it is your position that none take the mythicist position for ideological reasons? If so, that sounds incredibly naive to me.

Quote:

So there is no symmetry of positions.

I didn't say there was, which is why I snipped your rant. I only raised it as a question of "questioning motives." You suggested that was inappropriate, not me.

Quote:

The common meaning of "red herring" is "any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue." For example, if the question is whether Jesus existed, or whether mythicism is a better explanation of the data, a charge that mythicists just hate America or Christianity or share 6 irrelevant characterists with creationists is a diversion.

Have I asked the question whether Jesus existed? It's only a red herring if you ignore what I'm saying. Perhaps ApostateAbe was using it as such. I'm not.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.