Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yellum Notnef · 09-20-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

How do we know for certain that it's fictional?

We don't know for certain that the life is fictional (although some of the really weird incidents seem very very unlikely to be entirely historically accurate).

Thank you Andrew. I will check out the discussion you linked to. I'm interested in the nature of these "really weird" incidents.
Would they happen to be miraculous in nature?

aa5874 · 09-20-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

Antipope, a question for you. I've seen it claimed here that getting peer reviewed publications in biblical scholarship is tricky because the field is dominated by practicing Christians. Seminary scholars dominate, and so on. Do you believe this is true? What's your specialty as a historian?

I've skimmed some of the Doherty material, and it seems plausible to argue that a mystery religion doesn't need a real person behind it. I've also read some threads here, and found that the Christian claims of overwhelming evidence are rubbish. I was a bit surprised to find how little there is. As I understand it, there's pretty much nothing outside the Bible itself that is indisputable. Evidence of the existence of Christians, yes, sure - I also read my Tacitus & Pliny in high school Latin & Ancient History. But evidence of the actual Jesus character, nothing.

To be honest, I've probably formed most of my opinions from Monty Python's Life of Brian. I imagine there probably was a historical Jesus/Yeshua in among all the other ranting prophets. Blessed are the cheesemakers.

And the word 'Christian' does not inherently only apply to a follower of Jesus, son of the Holy Ghost. A 'Christian' is a follower of anyone who claims to be a Christ, or is a believer of any Christ, not necessarily Jesus, son of the Ghost.

So, in reality, the word 'Christian' is ambiguous with relation to the historicity of the Jesus of the NT, the offspring of a Spirit.

PhilosopherJay · 09-20-2007, 12:40 PM

Hi aa5874,

Perhaps we should put a positive spin on this. We may say that as early as the second half of the Second century, Christians were already affirming that Jesus had been an actually existing person who had died 100-150 years before.

The only problem with this is that exactly when the texts of Justin and Irenaeus were written is up for debate. It is probably safest to say that by about the year 200 there were some Christians who argued that Jesus had, in fact, existed as a half-man/half God some 150 years before.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

[
Take the fact that the opponents of Christianity never claimed Jesus didn't exist. They said he was a heretic, a fool, a charlatan etc. But never that he didn't exist. Didn't they notice that the original form of Christianity worshipped a purely mythic/non-earthly Jesus? Or did they forget? If we had a Celsus or Trypho poking Christians in the eye with reminders of how they had turned a mythic Jesus into an historical one or pointing out the mythic Jesus "heretics" in their midst, we'd have an excellent reason to reject the assumption that he existed.

According to Irenaeus in 'Against Heresies', there were Christians who believed Jesus was a phantom, that is, Jesus was not a real person, was never born, but descended from heaven as some god or sprit ,only appearing to be human.

As early as the 2nd century Valentinus, a Christian, taught that Christ was entirely of some type of spiritual material and had no earthly parents whatsoever.

Also, there was Marcion, in the 2nd century, a Christian and founder of the Marcionites, who claimed that the Gospels were almost entirely corrupted, except for some parts of gLuke. He, too, claimed Jesus was never born, in effect, all the events surrounding the childhood of Jesus in the NT are false. Jesus was some kind of spirit or god that appeared to be a human.

The historicity of Jesus was denied by many Christians as early as the 2nd century according to Irenaeus, see book 1 of Against Heresies for the non-human versions of Jesus by Christians.

jeffevnz · 09-20-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

<snip>
Sure - the fact that he's referred to using the Greek form "Iesous". That's the Greek form of the Aramaic "Yeshua". Both Yeshua and Iesous are rather odd names for a mythic being. That would be a bit like inventing a deity and calling it "Larry".

I made the same argument a few months ago (only I said "Steve" instead of "Larry"), and I also think it's a half-decent piece of evidence for historicity. Not strong by itself, but it adds to the case.

The initial counterargument that was made was that "Yeshua" means "God's salvation" or something along those lines, and therefore it would not be unusual as the name of a deity. Well, yes and no. "Yeshua" is a late, bastardized variation of "Yehoshua", which means "God's salvation". So the question becomes this. Would the original meaning of the name be apparent to 1st-century speakers of Aramaic? Would they look at the name "Yeshua," and see that it refers to God's salvation?

IMO, probably not, since the theophoric prefix "Yeho-" is almost gone.

Take my first name, Geoffrey, for example. In theory, it comes from the Anglo-Saxon compound word Gottesfreyende, literally meaning "lover of God". That meaning is not at all apparent when you look at "Geoffrey". However, if the name had evolved differently and were spelled "Godsfriend", then the meaning would be clear. The situation with "Yeshua" is probably closer to the first case.

Toto · 09-20-2007, 01:54 PM

Jesus is Joshua. 1st century Jews of whatever language would recognize this name as referring to Joshua, Moses lieutenant.

jeffevnz · 09-20-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jesus is Joshua. 1st century Jews of whatever language would recognize this name as referring to Joshua, Moses lieutenant.

So do you agree that the Jewish Christians would think of it as an earthly human name? And that it would be odd for them to give that name to a divine savior?

spamandham · 09-20-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

"No way"? Nonsense. The gospels, at least, said some kind of teacher and exorcist called "Jesus" (ie Yeshua) had been around just a few decades before.

True. The writings of Paul, although they do not mention miracles etc., also portray Jesus as more than human - as do all records Christian or otherwise until the middle of the 2nd century when critics of Christianity emerge in the record.

So we have ~100 years of Jesus being portrayed in legendary terms from the git go, and nothing prior or during that period that refutes the idea he was superhuman.

I don't understand how we conclude from this that there was a historical Yeshua. Obvioulsy it's possible, but why is it the simpler explanation for what we have? I don't see how this differs significantly from insisting upon a historical Hercules.

aa5874 · 09-20-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Perhaps we should put a positive spin on this. We may say that as early as the second half of the Second century, Christians were already affirming that Jesus had been an actually existing person who had died 100-150 years before.

The only problem with this is that exactly when the texts of Justin and Irenaeus were written is up for debate. It is probably safest to say that by about the year 200 there were some Christians who argued that Jesus had, in fact, existed as a half-man/half God some 150 years before.

And there were Christians who also claimed he was all God during the same period some 150 years before. And we have no historical facts about Jesus, just anecdotes by apologetics.

Toto · 09-20-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jesus is Joshua. 1st century Jews of whatever language would recognize this name as referring to Joshua, Moses lieutenant.

So do you agree that the Jewish Christians would think of it as an earthly human name? And that it would be odd for them to give that name to a divine savior?

It was a common earthly name, but it would also be a logical name for a semi-divine mediator between god and man who was meant to lead the Jewish nation to a new kingdom of god. I don't think you can conclude much one way or another just from the name.

MerryAtheist · 09-20-2007, 03:56 PM

As I am on the fence regarding HJ or MJ, I must say that I am enjoying this thread immensely. I only wish I didn't have real work to do, so I could read all the source material myself.

Sorry for the interruption. Please continue...

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

09-20-2007, 01:54 PM	#65
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jesus is Joshua. 1st century Jews of whatever language would recognize this name as referring to Joshua, Moses lieutenant.

09-20-2007, 03:56 PM	#70
MerryAtheist Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 241	As I am on the fence regarding HJ or MJ, I must say that I am enjoying this thread immensely. I only wish I didn't have real work to do, so I could read all the source material myself. Sorry for the interruption. Please continue...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.