Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-03-2012, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How so? There are a lot of prior figures with some features in common with the gospel Jesus, but historicists can dismiss those features as legendary accretions faster than you can say "virgin birth."

The principle of falsification addresses potential evidences, regardless of what arguments or evidences are actually on the table. For example, Acharya S has claimed that very many mythical gods, including the Mesoamerican god Quetzalcoatl, had a helluva lot of things in common with Jesus, including crucifixion, twelve disciples, virgin birth, baptism and resurrection. If that were true, then the theory that Jesus was merely mythical would be very strong, and the historical Jesus would be effectively falsified. The argument would of course be stronger still if the evidence predates the first century.

I guess we have a different idea of falsification. While Acharya has overstated some evidence and repeated some claims uncritically, most scholars would admit that there are some common elements among gods and Jesus. But historicists claim that these elements were grafted on to the historical Jesus, (while mythicists see the historical Jesus as fleshing out the spiritual god-savior.) There's no way to disprove this that I can see.

Quote:

But of course evidence like that doesn't have to exist in order for the position of a mythical Jesus to be generally accepted by reasonable people as probable. A lesser potential falsification would be that the early Christian writings shows mythical progression from God to man, rather than from man to God. Suppose Paul and the gospels of Mark and Q portrayed Jesus as God, with little or no humanity to be seen, and the derivative gospels of Matthew and Luke portrayed Jesus as purely man. If not falsify the historical Jesus, it would lend credibility to the theory that Jesus was merely myth, and it would have a place at the scholarly table. Critical scholars would generally accept it, and so would all of us.

Again, that isn't falsification. That goes to the question of the best interpretation of the evidence. You do see a higher Christology in Paul than in presumably later works, and there is a progressive development of historical details in later gospels - both an addition to the mythic elements, and an addition to the historical elements. Historicists do not seem to be troubled by this, for some reason.

aa5874 · 07-03-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

...By contrast, what we have with Jesus are, it appears, a number of accounts of his ministry beginning around 40 years after the time it occured....

YOU are making PRESUMPTIONS. And in addition, once you assume the Pauline writings are history then the Jesus story was already KNOWN or Jesus himself was ALREADY WELL KNOWN before the Gospels were written.

If Jesus did ACTUALLY Exist and Paul Persecuted those who BELIEVED in Jesus then the time Paul wrote is irrelevant.

Now, what we have is different from what you have PRESUMED.

There is NO NT manuscript, NO story about Jesus, DATED by Paleography or C 14 to the 1st century.

The actual DATED Texts SUGGEST that no NT author was in contact with any Jesus who died under Pilate--the NT authors are ALL 2nd century or LATER.

ApostateAbe · 07-04-2012, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The principle of falsification addresses potential evidences, regardless of what arguments or evidences are actually on the table. For example, Acharya S has claimed that very many mythical gods, including the Mesoamerican god Quetzalcoatl, had a helluva lot of things in common with Jesus, including crucifixion, twelve disciples, virgin birth, baptism and resurrection. If that were true, then the theory that Jesus was merely mythical would be very strong, and the historical Jesus would be effectively falsified. The argument would of course be stronger still if the evidence predates the first century.

I guess we have a different idea of falsification. While Acharya has overstated some evidence and repeated some claims uncritically, most scholars would admit that there are some common elements among gods and Jesus. But historicists claim that these elements were grafted on to the historical Jesus, (while mythicists see the historical Jesus as fleshing out the spiritual god-savior.) There's no way to disprove this that I can see.

Quote:

But of course evidence like that doesn't have to exist in order for the position of a mythical Jesus to be generally accepted by reasonable people as probable. A lesser potential falsification would be that the early Christian writings shows mythical progression from God to man, rather than from man to God. Suppose Paul and the gospels of Mark and Q portrayed Jesus as God, with little or no humanity to be seen, and the derivative gospels of Matthew and Luke portrayed Jesus as purely man. If not falsify the historical Jesus, it would lend credibility to the theory that Jesus was merely myth, and it would have a place at the scholarly table. Critical scholars would generally accept it, and so would all of us.

Again, that isn't falsification. That goes to the question of the best interpretation of the evidence. You do see a higher Christology in Paul than in presumably later works, and there is a progressive development of historical details in later gospels - both an addition to the mythic elements, and an addition to the historical elements. Historicists do not seem to be troubled by this, for some reason.

There is a higher Christology in Paul, probably owing to the point that the Jesus relevant to Paul's writings was the past, present and future Jesus, whereas the gospels focus exclusively on the past (biographical) Jesus. One way or the other, Paul regards Jesus as a human being, not as God, and so does Mark, Q, M, L, and Acts. Jesus becomes God only with the gospel of John and later Christian writings. It is a mythical development very much unexpected if Jesus truly did develop from prior myths of gods. Supposing that the earliest sources really did portray Jesus as a god and not a human being, and supposing the later sources really did portray Jesus as a human being and not a god, then the mythicist theory would look far more credible. It would be on the scholarly table, and almost all of us would accept it.

It may not be "falsification," but I think that goes to the reason why the principle of falsifiability is generally not used in the study of history. The principle demands cut-and-dry certainty, and the study of ancient history is a field where almost nothing is cut-and-dry. Every conclusion exists as intermediate values on a continuous scale of probability.

sotto voce · 07-04-2012, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

One way or the other, Paul regards Jesus as a human being, not as God, and so does Mark, Q, M, L, and Acts.

The internet is so wonderful.

Toto · 07-04-2012, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There is a higher Christology in Paul, probably owing to the point that the Jesus relevant to Paul's writings was the past, present and future Jesus, whereas the gospels focus exclusively on the past (biographical) Jesus. One way or the other, Paul regards Jesus as a human being, not as God, and so does Mark, Q, M, L, and Acts. Jesus becomes God only with the gospel of John and later Christian writings.

This is a very strange division. Jesus in Paul is a divine being, with a few superficial references to a human being. The Jesus in the gospels is a a supernatural creature playing out a drama on earth. gJohn cannot be dated any later than the synoptics. There is no clear line of progression.

Quote:

It is a mythical development very much unexpected if Jesus truly did develop from prior myths of gods.

I'm not sure why this is unexpected. Look at the popular ideas of Jesus over the last 2000 years - Jesus is continually reinterpreted according to the times.

Quote:

Supposing that the earliest sources really did portray Jesus as a god and not a human being, and supposing the later sources really did portray Jesus as a human being and not a god, then the mythicist theory would look far more credible. It would be on the scholarly table, and almost all of us would accept it.

But all of our sources combine some human and godlike aspects

Quote:

It may not be "falsification,"

That's my point - it's not.

Quote:

but I think that goes to the reason why the principle of falsifiability is generally not used in the study of history. The principle demands cut-and-dry certainty, and the study of ancient history is a field where almost nothing is cut-and-dry. Every conclusion exists as intermediate values on a continuous scale of probability.

I wish you would show some appreciation of the lack of certainty here.

aa5874 · 07-04-2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

All "biographies" in the ancient world were more akin to today's novels than to today's biographies. The closest to the gospels are those like Philostratus', while other historians were much more skeptical. But history in those days was still about telling stories. The main difference between history and myth was not the narrative or the presence of fantastical elements, but that histories and historians wanted (whatever other goals they may have had as well) to tell a story about what they believed actually happened.

You claim is HORRIBLY erroneous. You are hopelessly WRONG. Please, we have had enough of your propaganda.

We have Suetonius' The Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

We have the Autobiography of Flavius Josephus.

Examine the Autobiography of Flavius Josephus.

Quote:

........ My grandfather's father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus: he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who first of all the high priests was named Hyrcanus.

This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias: he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest, which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also.

This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son's name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archclaus; as was I born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar. I have three sons: Hyrcanus, the eldest, was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian, as was Justus born in the seventh, and Agrippa in the ninth.

Thus have I set down the genealog of my family as I have found it described (2) in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me [as of a lower original]....

ApostateAbe · 07-04-2012, 09:13 AM

Toto, when a scientific theory is "unfalsifiable," then it is probably a bad theory. When a hypothesis of ancient history is "unfalsifiable," then it is both normal and perhaps the best we can do. Regardless, the study of ancient history has this much in common with science: when all of the evidence lines up with the expectations of a single hypothesis, then that is the hypothesis that is most probable.

Solo · 07-04-2012, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It was later materialists, questers for the historical man behind the myth, who decided that there must have been a merely human man who inspired the gospel writers.

That is untrue. Some of the earliest so-called heresies featured Jesus as an ordinary human. It appears that that the entity called "Christ" (by the apocalyptic cults and earliest Christians, not traditionalist Jews) was originally a spiritual/psychological phenom associated with known mental states of high excitement in which the subjects believe themselves privy to God's ultimate secrets and envision secret designs of the universe. This feeling of profoundest meaning or gnosis is most commonly associated with para- or ab-normal temporal lobe functions.

Best,
Jiri

Quote:

But there is no independent evidence of this merely human Jesus - only a convoluted argument based on an imaginary ability to extract information from the gospels.

This argument is getting repetitious. Let's put it to rest.

The fact that the gospels contain supernatural elements does not prove that Jesus did not exist.

But it is not good historical methodology to discard the supernatural elements and claim that the rest is factual history, without some reliable supporting evidence. There is no credible evidence for Jesus' material existence outside of the gospels.

stephan huller · 07-04-2012, 09:32 AM

there arent many "jesus ordinary human" cults. the carpocratians and a few other uncertain ones. maybe

sotto voce · 07-04-2012, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Toto, when a scientific theory is "unfalsifiable," then it is probably a bad theory.

A scientific theory is always falsifiable. A scientific hypothesis is always falsifiable, too, provided it is feasible. There are no bad scientific hypotheses unless they are non-feasible, or 'barmy', to use a word more likely to be used in such cases.

Quote:

When a hypothesis of ancient history is "unfalsifiable," then it is both normal and perhaps the best we can do.

But then all of history is hypothesis, in terms of interpretation. Even recent history. Perhaps, especially recent history. Totally contradictory interpretations of today's news can be found, if one looks. The study of ancient history therefore has nothing in common with science, beyond the fact that they both use (or should use) common sense. History is always a filtered view, particularly where it really matters, in the root causes of political and religious events. That is why a quite large number of the comments posted here, made with such apparent assurance, are tediously irrelevant, either because they are made without adequate (or any) evidence, or are deliberate propaganda.

'One way or the other, Paul regards Jesus as a human being, not as God, and so does Mark, Q, M, L, and Acts' is a perfect example.

Quote:

when all of the evidence lines up with the expectations of a single hypothesis, then that is the hypothesis that is most probable.

The sniff of circularity? Or are we to be privileged with some actual data? :grin:

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

07-04-2012, 09:13 AM	#37
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Toto, when a scientific theory is "unfalsifiable," then it is probably a bad theory. When a hypothesis of ancient history is "unfalsifiable," then it is both normal and perhaps the best we can do. Regardless, the study of ancient history has this much in common with science: when all of the evidence lines up with the expectations of a single hypothesis, then that is the hypothesis that is most probable.

07-04-2012, 09:32 AM	#39
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	there arent many "jesus ordinary human" cults. the carpocratians and a few other uncertain ones. maybe

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.