Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 02-22-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

GDon, what is so unlikely about the original Christians having believed that Jesus came in the flesh simply because they believed that the scriptures said he did and not due to any particular reason other than that?

I honestly don't know how to judge how unlikely it is, as AFAIK the idea is unprecedented. But unprecedented events do occur all the time.

Where would they have gotten the "Jesus came in the flesh" idea from in Scriptures?

I don't know, but it seems that Paul may have done just that.

Toto · 02-22-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Under my theory, this omission is not weird. These historical details are not important, because there was no "historical" Jesus and everyone knew it.

So don't you think there might have been some Jewish teacher named Jesus who had a small group of followers and was executed, and his story was enlarged, mythified etc.? What is so strange about such a scenario?

None of the details hang together. Why was Jesus executed? The record is one that even Christians puzzle over. Why did the movement not die after him, as most such movements do if the leader dies? Christians argue that this is evidence for Jesus' resurrection, or at least some extraordinary event. The secular historicists argue that Jesus had an overwhelmingly charsimatic personality, or that this is how unconditional love can change the world. But all these explanations raise more questions than they solve.

Quote:

The modern historicists need to explain why there are no no historical details where they would be expected, and have no answer.

Why would there be historical details in a theological/pastoral letter? What if there were other letters by Paul which concerned historical details but were not preserved? Are these arguments against believers or about the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Doherty has listed the "sounds of silence" - instances where Paul would be expected to mention some detail about Jesus if he knew that detail, as part of his pastoral letter.

Toto · 02-22-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

I'm calling it "the elephant in the room" precisely because it hasn't been discussed AFAIK. Where was it discussed?

You had a long debate with Doherty.

Quote:

"Orthodox" Christians who believed that Jesus wasn't historical? Is that what you are saying?

The orthodox Jesus is in history, but also beyond it. He's a mystery. You don't look for historical confirmation of mysteries. It seems that when Constantine and Helena came to Palestine looking for the history of their Lord, is was a surprise to the Christians there that anyone took their stories that literally. I don't think that means that they were historicists who didn't care about history. I think it means that there idea of history is not the same as ours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Their interpolations mainly concerned theology - the position of the Jews, salvation, grace, angels.

The modern historicists need to explain why there are no no historical details where they would be expected, and have no answer.

They don't, but as you acknowledged earlier, this is just a minor part of the puzzle. We still need to look at what Paul DID say, and when we do, IMHO the mythicist case falls apart.

Only if you are absolutely convinced that Paul's letter have been truly and accurately transmitted to us with no little interpolations or forged sections to support the prevailing orthodoxy, and that you really understand what all of his murky prose really means.

If you really want to learn more about the second century, read Roger Parvus' A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings. He goes through the arguments for interpolations in the letters of Ignatius and shows clearly what was interpolated and why, and possibly who interpolated them.

figuer · 02-22-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

So don't you think there might have been some Jewish teacher named Jesus who had a small group of followers and was executed, and his story was enlarged, mythified etc.? What is so strange about such a scenario?

Can't speak for Toto - but one of the most impressive features of people who front this story is how LAZY they are.

Sure, no need to actually read through Josephus to catalogue the roughly two-dozen Jesus' in this important set of Jewish historical works covering the alleged period of Jesus' ministry. In order to propose one.

If you did that you would see there is no Jesus in that set of two-dozen candidates that fits the bill in any meaningful way.

I know before you write what your excuse is going to be. And before getting to it - note it will be just that: an excuse.

Proponents of this "under the radar" Jesus are like O.J. Simpson saying he is looking for his wife's killer. They aren't looking. They have no intentions of looking.

The definition of Jesus for them is found by successively giving up all of the most patently ridiculous miracles and easily disproven things.

Whatever troubling thing they run into, Jesus is re-defined around the problem.

And it puts you, instead of being a researcher who looks positively for evidence, to be one who defines Jesus as the one who cannot be disproven.

A "Jesus who can't be contradicted": A Jesus who left no evidence. A Jesus so remarkably invisible that we can't trace any kind of linear heritage.

until when? It isn't even a positive theory. It does no explaining of particular events in christian development. It is reactionary to evidence. Meaning you just re-define Jesus whenever there is some contradiction with the maintained hypothesis.

And what is exposed beneath this way of thinking is that it is merely a blind faith in Jesus. It isn't something you arrive at with evidence. It is impossible to falsify with evidence because the definition of Jesus is based on evading whatever evidence is put in front of you. Not in Josephus? OK, so let's make up a story why he would not be in Josephus.

It can't be anything based on what the bible actually says about Jesus, because in there he is spectacularly noticed. To change Jesus from the person overthrowing the money tables and threatening the religious establishment to a Jesus nobody noticed is to have no Jesus at all.

What do you even mean by "teacher"? Start giving us something that is actually more than a sentence. Do you mean in a Jewish synagogue? An itinerant wanderer? What is the scenario you are actually proposing? Give us the explanation for how it got started and where, when - why it isn't in Josephus' chapter on sects of the Jews...

but wait... that isn't how "under the radar" HJ proponents work, is it. You don't actually propose anything more than a vague sentence.

There will always be a Jesus for you. Because it is not an idea about a fixed Jesus who actually lived and can be looked for. It is what we call "endogenous" in statistics.

Not a fixed jesus who can be proposed and tested with evidence. It is a Jesus you define as a reaction to the evidence. It is exactly the opposite of the way hypothesis testing works.

And no, there is no way to argue against it. Because you define him around every argument brought to you instead of positively arguing a case yourself.

Since I don't have any faith in any Jesus, the above diarrhea comes as a thorough exercise in inanity. You reveal yourself as <edit> incapable of analyzing a question on its merits without jumping to ridiculous conclusions pertaining the intentions of the questioner.

If Josephus mentions Jesus like figures in his text, then that provides ample evidence that there were historical persons that might have given rise to the mythical Jesus, which is my only point. That the historical source of the myth was named Jesus or not is irrelevant, the issue is wether the Christ myth is based on an a person (or a conglomerate of persons), or is a thorough invention. I don't see any justification to exclude the possibility of a vague historical basis for the Christ myth.

figuer · 02-22-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

So don't you think there might have been some Jewish teacher named Jesus who had a small group of followers and was executed, and his story was enlarged, mythified etc.? What is so strange about such a scenario?

None of the details hang together. Why was Jesus executed? The record is one that even Christians puzzle over.

He (or them) was a threat to the authorities?

Quote:

Why did the movement not die after him, as most such movements do if the leader dies?

:huh: Do they always?

Quote:

Christians argue that this is evidence for Jesus' resurrection, or at least some extraordinary event.

I am not interested in what Christians claim regarding this matter.

Quote:

The secular historicists argue that Jesus had an overwhelmingly charsimatic personality, or that this is how unconditional love can change the world.

What??

Quote:

But all these explanations raise more questions than they solve.

Because there were no explanations given?

Quote:

Why would there be historical details in a theological/pastoral letter? What if there were other letters by Paul which concerned historical details but were not preserved? Are these arguments against believers or about the possibility of a historical Jesus?

Doherty has listed the "sounds of silence" - instances where Paul would be expected to mention some detail about Jesus if he knew that detail, as part of his pastoral letter.

I don't see an answer above.

I don't understand what is so anathema to some non-Christians about the idea that there is some vague historical basis for the gospels. Seems to me an indication of anti-Christian fundamentalism, rather than of secular rationality.

aa5874 · 02-22-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

If Josephus mentions Jesus like figures in his text, then that provides ample evidence that there were historical persons that might have given rise to the mythical Jesus, which is my only point. That the historical source of the myth was named Jesus or not is irrelevant, the issue is wether the Christ myth is based on an a person (or a conglomerate of persons), or is a thorough invention. I don't see any justification to exclude the possibility of a vague historical basis for the Christ myth.

So, now it is your obligation to prove that Jesus of the NT was not a myth or that the myth was based on either a person or a conglomerate of persons.

You are just repeating over and over what you think is possible.

Now, it is time to put your evidence forward.

So far, you have a BLANK sheet.

GakuseiDon · 02-22-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

I'm calling it "the elephant in the room" precisely because it hasn't been discussed AFAIK. Where was it discussed?

You had a long debate with Doherty.

Toto, Doherty agrees with me on the silence. There is "something extremely odd going on" in that "there is a silence in the second century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is almost the equal to that in the first century letter writers." So we both see an elephant there.

What we disagree on is the significance of the silence. Doherty sees those apologists -- arguably all writing after 160 CE -- as being ahistoricists. My debates with him were around that.

Now, let's assume for the moment that I am correct, and that the "extremely odd" silence in the Second Century was the product of historicist writers. Do you think I have a point (assuming I am correct) in wondering how that should affect how we see the odd silence in the First Century?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The orthodox Jesus is in history, but also beyond it. He's a mystery. You don't look for historical confirmation of mysteries. It seems that when Constantine and Helena came to Palestine looking for the history of their Lord, is was a surprise to the Christians there that anyone took their stories that literally.

I was unaware of this, though it sounds like Freke&Gandy. Do you have any references for this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

They don't, but as you acknowledged earlier, this is just a minor part of the puzzle. We still need to look at what Paul DID say, and when we do, IMHO the mythicist case falls apart.

Only if you are absolutely convinced that Paul's letter have been truly and accurately transmitted to us with no little interpolations or forged sections to support the prevailing orthodoxy, and that you really understand what all of his murky prose really means.

Sure, any argument from Paul would be affected as we learn of interpolations or forgery of key passages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you really want to learn more about the second century, read Roger Parvus' A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings. He goes through the arguments for interpolations in the letters of Ignatius and shows clearly what was interpolated and why, and possibly who interpolated them.

Thanks for that, it sounds interesting.

GakuseiDon · 02-22-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I honestly don't know how to judge how unlikely it is, as AFAIK the idea is unprecedented. But unprecedented events do occur all the time.

Where would they have gotten the "Jesus came in the flesh" idea from in Scriptures?

I don't know, but it seems that Paul may have done just that.

Well, what about the crucifixion, then?

mountainman · 02-22-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I am hearing a style of argument that has been baffling to me G Don -

I don't know if you will remember this. It was a while ago. We were talking about how there had been no 1st or 2nd century tradition of gathering at any site where Jesus was allegedly crucified. No pilgrimages to this "famous" and by the way unknown spot. *snicker*

Well that is pretty damning IMHO. It wasn't until very late - like 4th century, even, before it got going.

Really? From what date was Jesus generally thought to be historical, in your view? Let's say it was around 160 CE. So, assuming you are correct that the pilgrimages didn't get started until the 4th C CE, why didn't they get started between 160 CE and the 4th C?

Dear Don,

There could have been a manifest lack of interest in early centuries.

Quote:

It's a good analogy to the situation in Paul. If there were few pilgrimages in the 3rd C (I can't remember the details myself, so I am just going by what you wrote above), well after historicity was accepted, then we shouldn't be so surprised if there were few pilgrimages in the 2nd C.

Now, the reasons may well be different for the lack of pilgrimages between centuries, but the 3rd C lack of pilgrimages becomes "the elephant in the room" if it is ignored.

The "elephant in the room" is the "HJ Postulate". It is in some peoples' mind "in the room" because it is in their head being processed as a postulate. Why is it being processed as a postulate? Because we have been told by authority for many many centuries that the HJ was -- for want of a better word - "historical". There is however, no evidence by which to either substantiate the postulate, or to even examine the postulate. We have an "unexamined elephant in the room".

For the majority of people, when they look and assemble within themselves an understanding of antiquity - specifically the first three centuries - the first thing they pick up is the HJ postulate. I think this is big elephant size mistake. I think that if you really wanted to understand the nature of the HJ postulate, you would dismiss it entirely, and then try and reconstruct the history of the period without it. This makes an interesting exercise in complimentary logic and self-analysis.

Best wishes,

Pete

GakuseiDon · 02-22-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Really? From what date was Jesus generally thought to be historical, in your view? Let's say it was around 160 CE. So, assuming you are correct that the pilgrimages didn't get started until the 4th C CE, why didn't they get started between 160 CE and the 4th C?

Dear Don,

There could have been a manifest lack of interest in early centuries.

Yes, based on what rlogan has provided. This is how the argument seems to play out:

Rlogan: There were few pilgrimages in the Second Century! That is unlikely! How do you explain that?

GDon: But according to you, there were few pilgrimages in the Third Century. Since that was a time when people definitely believed in a HJ, that becomes even more unlikely!

Rlogan: That's irrelevant!

Maybe there are different reasons for the lack of recorded pilgrimages in the two centuries, but the lack in that later time period -- when people were SURE there was a HJ -- becomes more conspicious. At that point, we would have to ask how the lack of pilgrimages in the Third Century affects the implications of the lack in the Second Century (again, I'm just going by what rlogan wrote above).

Similarly the odd silence occurring in the Second Century. It can't be treated as a First Century phenomenon, because it wasn't. Maybe Doherty is correct, and ahistoricists wrote most of the apologetic material in the Second Century. But I think that there is too much evidence against that position to make it fly. And if Doherty is wrong about the significance of the Second Century silence, a huge (elephant sized) flag gets placed over the First Century writings, IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

For the majority of people, when they look and assemble within themselves an understanding of antiquity - specifically the first three centuries - the first thing they pick up is the HJ postulate. I think this is big elephant size mistake. I think that if you really wanted to understand the nature of the HJ postulate, you would dismiss it entirely, and then try and reconstruct the history of the period without it. This makes an interesting exercise in complimentary logic and self-analysis.

Best wishes,

Pete

I'm sorry Pete, but I think the elephant you are seeing is of the pink variety. :blush:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.