Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 11-30-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

It seems that, from what I've read of the Jesus Seminar, this was their aim. To use their learning and skills to try and discern what, if any, historical bits of truth there were in the gospel stories. And it seems that I've also read that Robert M. Price ( a member of the Jesus Seminar) takes things down the road a little further than the average Jesus Seminar scholar.

I've read Earl Doherty's book. A couple of times. So, I'm somewhat familiar with the myth position that he presents. And originally, it made good sense to me and seemed to explain the difficulties that the HJ position can't explain.

But lately, I've starting wondering if the real truth doesn't lie somewhere in the middle.

Michael

I found GakuseiDon to be very weak in his arguments. Anyone ,familiar with the NT, would recognise that all the authors therein propagated that Jesus existed on earth.
Now, if the existence of Jesus is challenged, then in effect, all the authors of the NT are challenged with respect to their credibilty.
So, saying that Paul said Jesus existed or he believed Jesus existed does not in any way bring Jesus to life. GakuseiDon is merely repeating the statements under review, the very same thing that is under contention, that Paul and others of the NT claimed Jesus existed.

In order for the historicity of Jesus to be established, it should be obvious that GakuseiDon needs independent credible sources to corroborate Paul and the other authors of the NT. So, if Paul said X about Jesus and a credible independent source also said X about Jesus, then the claim for the historicity of Jesus is strenghtened.

Gakuseidon completely failed to provide a single credible independent source, except the disputed "TF", that specifically mentioned a person called Jesus who was crucified under Pilate, who was believed to be the Messiah, or Son of God with thousands of followers who John the Baptist baptized.

If Jesus existed ,whether half man-half god, all god or all man, all we need is an independent credible source to verify in some reasonable undisputed way that this Jesus of the NT did actually exist.

GakuseiDon · 11-30-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I found GakuseiDon to be very weak in his arguments.

No, my arguments were actually brilliant.

It's the data that was weak. I wanted to show that there is only a small amount of data coming from the First Century, and that data only offers weak evidence for a historical Jesus -- so much so, that HJ-agnosticism is IMO a reasonable position. Still, that data provides stronger evidence for the existence of a HJ than the reverse. I appreciated Malachi's responses, but I don't think he really looked at the evidence that I presented. The assumption seemed to be that if it was mapped back to the Hebrew Scriptures, it was invalidated as evidence. But I would be interested if Malachi can explain the rationale here for that? If Paul used scriptures to show that the Messiah was to come out of Jerusalem, for example, doesn't that mean that Paul believed Jesus came out of Jerusalem anyway? What does it matter if it was mapped back to the scriptures or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, if Paul said X about Jesus and a credible independent source also said X about Jesus...

Well, they were all Xians.

aa5874 · 11-30-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I found GakuseiDon to be very weak in his arguments.

No, my arguments were actually brilliant.

It's the data that was weak. I wanted to show that there is only a small amount of data coming from the First Century, and that data only offers weak evidence for a historical Jesus -- so much so, that HJ-agnosticism is IMO a reasonable position. Still, that data provides stronger evidence for the existence of a HJ than the reverse. I appreciated Malachi's responses, but I don't think he really looked at the evidence that I presented. The assumption seemed to be that if it was mapped back to the Hebrew Scriptures, it was invalidated as evidence. But I would be interested if Malachi can explain the rationale here for that? If Paul used scriptures to show that the Messiah was to come out of Jerusalem, for example, doesn't that mean that Paul believed Jesus came out of Jerusalem anyway? What does it matter if it was mapped back to the scriptures or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, if Paul said X about Jesus and a credible independent source also said X about Jesus...

Well, they were all Xians.

Weak historical data diminishes the historical Jesus and augments non-historicity. And an Xian is not a credible source, they are biased and expect to be rewarded by Jesus in heaven.

GakuseiDon · 12-01-2007, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Weak historical data diminishes the historical Jesus and augments non-historicity.

No doubt about it. If the evidence were stronger, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Solitary Man · 12-01-2007, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And an Xian is not a credible source, they are biased and expect to be rewarded by Jesus in heaven.

Is that like the atheist who is not a credible source since they hate Christians?

Sven · 12-01-2007, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And an Xian is not a credible source, they are biased and expect to be rewarded by Jesus in heaven.

Is that like the atheist who is not a credible source since they hate Christians?

How many atheists really hate Christians? Sure, there are probably some who hate Christianity, but you really should be more careful with your choice of words.

Solitary Man · 12-01-2007, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Is that like the atheist who is not a credible source since they hate Christians?

How many atheists really hate Christians? Sure, there are probably some who hate Christianity, but you really should be more careful with your choice of words.

Synechdoche.

andrewcriddle · 12-01-2007, 03:31 AM

I may be misunderstanding Malachi's position. (It depends partly on what he means by Mark being fiction or fictional). However Malachi seems to be suggesting that although neither Paul or Mark believed in a historical Jesus as normally understood their versions of ahistoricity were very different.

Paul's Jesus being mythical rather than historical and Mark's Jesus being symbolic rather than historical.

Malachi am I right about what you are suggesting ?

Andrew Criddle

spin · 12-01-2007, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The folks who were not persecuted in person by Bush, Pinochet, Franco, and Hitler but only knew them by reputation would be our "assemblies of Judea" and the reputation they know is from the direct persecution of others. Just like I'm saying is what Paul describes.

You're doing a great job supporting my position but I think you are supposed to support your own. :angel:

Aren't you the fella who was trying to equate "others" with "us"?

Perhaps you could make wrong equal right and there'd be no more conflicts of opinion.

spin

jjramsey · 12-01-2007, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I go into this at length in my JM article:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#10

You have to scroll down to the part on Josephus.

At any rate, the main point is that we can see that in Origen's writings where he talks about Josephus and James, he actually quotes from Hegesippus, not Josephus, and we also know that Hegesippus was a name that was commonly mixed up with Josephus, as the spelling was very similar. This name mix up, among a different Hegesippus with Josephus, occurred more than once.

Two problems:

First, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that Origin's claims have little to do with what is in Josephus would make it harder for a scribe to see the connection between his work and Josephus'.

Second, your reconstruction,

Quote:

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus [], whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. [emphasis added]

has Josephus add "son of Damneus" as a modifier to the second mention of Jesus, leaving the reader hanging for a little while as to who this Jesus is. One would expect Josephus to have written the passage like this:

Quote:

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus [] high priest. [emphasis added]

Here, Jesus is identified from the get-go.

Trouble is, neither you nor spin have given any plausible reasons for why we should presume an interpolation at all.

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

12-01-2007, 03:31 AM	#108
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I may be misunderstanding Malachi's position. (It depends partly on what he means by Mark being fiction or fictional). However Malachi seems to be suggesting that although neither Paul or Mark believed in a historical Jesus as normally understood their versions of ahistoricity were very different. Paul's Jesus being mythical rather than historical and Mark's Jesus being symbolic rather than historical. Malachi am I right about what you are suggesting ? Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.