Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-07-2012, 05:23 PM

Attention infidels.

May I request an infidel (not on ignore by spin) to assist this discussion by reposting post #20 ofthis thread so spin can not openly ignore its contibution to his OP. (spin has this infidel on ignore)

Thankyou.

Pete Brown

An infidel.

mountainman · 06-07-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It remains simply a story within a text of religious stories, that has never been, cannot be, corroborated by any evidence external to the content of that text.

That's not true, actually.

Actually it is. You cannot provide any verifiable evidence that this alleged figure ever existed outside of Bible stories

Or Bible accounts. Why don't you come at historicist's with an ax, to settle their hash? Such coercion as 'fictional stories' merely shoots yourself, and in a region higher than the foot.

Of course there is evidence. There is no forum, to my knowledge, about the historicity of the Egyptian deity Amun, or of the Incas' Inti. So this very thread, this forum, is evidence. It's not proof, but you didn't ask for that, and I've said it isn't available, anyway. If you live in a Western town, there are within walking distance probably half a dozen places where sane, intelligent people who believe in a historical Jesus reckon to actually talk to him. They, and people the world over, don't do that with Amun, Inti, Poseidon, Toutatis or any of thousands other supposed deities that have been prayed to. Jesus knocked every last one out of the pantheon. That's evidence.

Your doctor, your lawyer, your child's teacher, your chief of police, your bank manager, your national leader, may well regard Jesus as historical. These are not people who can be dismissed, as people who read astrologists or chase UFOs. That's evidence.

Of the same quality as the visions and predictions of astrologist's, and the UFO abduction stories, or those wearing their tinfoil hats.

They most certainly can be dismissed.

So will MJers henceforth dismiss HJ doctors, lawyers, teachers, police, bank managers, national leaders?

They will be dismissed if - after an open objective investigation - they are found to be corrupt.

Quote:

Maybe they will have to colonise another planet.

Be careful sv: political exile has been employed to deter dissidents from their opinions since Nicaea.

Diogenes the Cynic · 06-07-2012, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Not true. We would still have Tacitus, and we would still have the Christian religion.

And what do you think Taticus could have had to say about any of this without any Biblical TEXTS to inform him?
Christians would have no record of what their god did or their religion is about. How would thay know they were Christians without the TEXT that explain what a Christian is? Ask a Jim Jones or Davy Koresh?

Quote:

Jesus should not be defined as the character in the Gospels, but as a hypothetical real historical source/inspiration/founder at the root of Christian religion. No text is necessary. The NT is irrelevant.

The writers of The NT certainly thought otherwise.
'These are WRITTEN that you might believe..."

No TEXTS and no one would have any traceable or consistent information about him.
As if he isn't enough of a figment already.

Removing or disregarding the content of the only surviving accounts of his alleged existence and acts will not turn a then totally unattested to figure into being a 'historical' personage.

You think Tacitus had knowledge of the New Testament?

It is not necessary to have information about him. If a real Jesus inspired the Christian religion, then a Historical Jesus existed. It doesn't matter what the Gospels say. The Tacitus definition works fine as a wholly sufficient definition. I'm not saying Tacitus is authentic, I'm just saying that, hypothetically, a person who fit that essential description would qualify as a Historical Jesus. Jesus can be thusly defined without any reference to Christian literature at all.

DCHindley · 06-07-2012, 06:04 PM

I see some here who use "historicist" to mean those who believe that Jesus Christ was exactly as depicted in the NT. Those who use the term in this way hardly acknowledge any other type of historical Jesus could have possibly existed, as most all of them are fanatical mythicists. Its all or nothing for them, and "historicists" for them are the "enemy." On the other end of the spectrum, the true believers in the Jesus Christ revealed in the scriptures think the fanatical mythers are damned Christ deniers.

Now I've always been of the middle position, that a real person Jesus once existed, but the Jesus Christ depicted in the NT is the result of myth built up around him.

Someone (OK it was Schweitzer) once said that the Jesus Christ of the NT and Christian tradition is the "historic Christ," whereas our reconstructions of what the man Jesus was is the "historical" Jesus. Only thing is, we can't help but making our vision of the historical Jesus into our own idea of what the historic Jesus should be.

Pity.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the interest of being surer we are making sense one to another, what meanings do we share in our conversations here regarding the historical Jesus and when talking of historicists? What does "historical" mean in the context of Jesus and what exactly is a Jesus historicist? My guess is that the latter may be defined in terms of the former. If we all can agree on that fact, what exactly does "historical" mean when it qualifies Jesus? If not, can we clarify "historicist" as well?

Come out, wherever you are. I haven't got an axe. I just want to hammer out some basic terminology. So don't be coy. Give your opinion. It mightn't be what another thinks, but what will be the upshot? Can we come to a clear consensus?

mountainman · 06-07-2012, 06:17 PM

In recent audio interview (discussed in a thread here) Richard Carrier states:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

There are 3 competing theories for the origins of christianity and Jesus's relationship to that:

(1) Superfamous Jesus, Gospels are true = Fundamentalist thesis:

(2) Secular historicity: Jesus was an ordinary nobody: gospels are mostly fiction: most common and mainstream view

(3) Secular non historicity: Jesus was first a myth and then made historical: fringe position. This is an hypothesis without proper review yet. Await Carriers book.

Carrier might have said there are 3 competing SECULAR theories for the origins of christianity and Jesus's relationship to that.

outhouse · 06-07-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I see some here who use "historicist" to mean those who believe that Jesus Christ was exactly as depicted in the NT. Those who use the term in this way hardly acknowledge any other type of historical Jesus could have possibly existed, as most all of them are fanatical mythicists. Its all or nothing for them, and "historicists" for them are the "enemy." On the other end of the spectrum, the true believers in the Jesus Christ revealed in the scriptures think the fanatical mythers are damned Christ deniers.

Now I've always been of the middle position, that a real person Jesus once existed, but the Jesus Christ depicted in the NT is the result of myth built up around him.

Someone (OK it was Schweitzer) once said that the Jesus Christ of the NT and Christian tradition is the "historic Christ," whereas our reconstructions of what the man Jesus was is the "historical" Jesus. Only thing is, we can't help but making our vision of the historical Jesus into our own idea of what the historic Jesus should be.

Pity.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In the interest of being surer we are making sense one to another, what meanings do we share in our conversations here regarding the historical Jesus and when talking of historicists? What does "historical" mean in the context of Jesus and what exactly is a Jesus historicist? My guess is that the latter may be defined in terms of the former. If we all can agree on that fact, what exactly does "historical" mean when it qualifies Jesus? If not, can we clarify "historicist" as well?

Come out, wherever you are. I haven't got an axe. I just want to hammer out some basic terminology. So don't be coy. Give your opinion. It mightn't be what another thinks, but what will be the upshot? Can we come to a clear consensus?

Good points

maybe we should just define all 3 stances on the topic that can apply to clear way for the definition of HJ to be more clear.

BJ = the book explains exactly what happened

HJ = a Galilean preacher/healer was the foundation the myth's were built around

MJ = a purely mythical view for the NT with no real man as a foundation for said mythology

Everything fits into one of the 3

Toto · 06-07-2012, 06:41 PM

Some posts have been moved to the Sotto Voce tangent thread.

Now behave.

aa5874 · 06-07-2012, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You think Tacitus had knowledge of the New Testament?...

Again, we do NOT have any original Existing Texts of Tacitus Annals so it is of very little use to make arguments about the thoughts of Tacitus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It is not necessary to have information about him. If a real Jesus inspired the Christian religion, then a Historical Jesus existed....

You have presented a most Circular argument--If Jesus existed then he existed.

Your circular argument can be easily debunked. "If a real Jesus did NOT inspire the Christian religion then there was no historical Jesus.

The History of Jesus is that of a myth.

Let us do history. Let us reconstruct the past based on gMark.

Let us reconstruct the biography of Jesus from sources of antiquity.

Jesus WALKED on water and transfigured.

The history of Jesus is that of Mythology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

It doesn't matter what the Gospels say. The Tacitus definition works fine as a wholly sufficient definition.

It matters what the Gospels say just like it matters what Tacitus Annals 15.44 say. You don't seem to care about the history of Jesus in the Gospels but about Christus in Annals.

You are NOT doing history if the Gospels don't matter. The Gospels mention a character called Jesus FIVE HUNDRED times and the Jesus story has been dated by Paleography to the 2nd century.

The Existing Tacitus Annals is dated to at least SEVEN hundred years after the earliest dated Jesus story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

.... I'm not saying Tacitus is authentic, I'm just saying that, hypothetically, a person who fit that essential description would qualify as a Historical Jesus. Jesus can be thusly defined without any reference to Christian literature at all.

Well, if you don't know whether or not Tacitus is authentic then you are making big FAT CIRCULAR argument.

1. You have nothing from Annals that is dated to the 2nd century.

2. There is no mention of Jesus in Annals.

3. You don't know whether Annals is authentic.

4. No apologetics used Annals for the history of Jesus.

You have presented the very worst argument for the HISTORY your Jesus.

spin · 06-08-2012, 02:07 AM

I can delineate at least seven Jesuses:

The real Jesus (hypothetically Jesus did exist and was thus real)
The traditional Jesus (the sum of all the tradition that tells us about Jesus)
The gospel Jesus (the Jesus we extract pure from what the gospels tell us)
The confessional Jesus (the Jesus that a believer believes in, being their personal selection of accepted notions and cogitations)
The commonsense Jesus (the modern anachronistic construct that makes sense to the commonsenser)
The historical Jesus (who can be derived from historical methodology) and
The mythical Jesus (actually three different Jesuses, one who embodies a myth, one who is the aggregate of myths and one that is a load of bollox)

Any thoughts?

Sheshbazzar · 06-08-2012, 05:06 AM

Yes.

06-08-2012, 02:07 AM	#59
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I can delineate at least seven Jesuses: The real Jesus (hypothetically Jesus did exist and was thus real) The traditional Jesus (the sum of all the tradition that tells us about Jesus) The gospel Jesus (the Jesus we extract pure from what the gospels tell us) The confessional Jesus (the Jesus that a believer believes in, being their personal selection of accepted notions and cogitations) The commonsense Jesus (the modern anachronistic construct that makes sense to the commonsenser) The historical Jesus (who can be derived from historical methodology) and The mythical Jesus (actually three different Jesuses, one who embodies a myth, one who is the aggregate of myths and one that is a load of bollox) Any thoughts?

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

06-07-2012, 05:23 PM	#51
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Attention infidels. May I request an infidel (not on ignore by spin) to assist this discussion by reposting post #20 ofthis thread so spin can not openly ignore its contibution to his OP. (spin has this infidel on ignore) Thankyou. Pete Brown An infidel.

06-07-2012, 06:41 PM	#57
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Some posts have been moved to the Sotto Voce tangent thread. Now behave.

06-08-2012, 05:06 AM	#60
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Yes.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.