Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 06-06-2002, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
Hence, the only relevant question is, "Was this particular man named Jesus written about in the NT mythologies what those myths claimed he was?"

I'm sorry, but this type of crap really pisses me off. When people talk about the historicity of Jesus, no one is referring the possibility that some matzoh maker in Jerusalem might be named Yeshua. To suggest that the issue was ever that vague seems entirely disingenuous.

Jayhawker Soule · 06-06-2002, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
The non-trivial version of the question is whether a man named Jesus started the religion called Christianity, or whether the religion started as a Jewish variant on the mystery cults and then created a history for itself by inventing a founder named Jesus.

I'm sorry, but I must again disagree. If there is a Jesus underpinning some early Jewish movement in Jerusalem, any history about him is relevant. Why? Because what that movement transformed, evolved, and/or was co-opted into was, in fact, historic.

Vorkosigan · 06-06-2002, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:

I'm sorry, but this type of crap really pisses me off. When people talk about the historicity of Jesus, no one is referring the possibility that some matzoh maker in Jerusalem might be named Yeshua. To suggest that the issue was ever that vague seems entirely disingenuous.

It seems to me, RD, that Koy is asking how faithfully the early christian writings reflect the life of the mythologized founder of the movement. That's not crap, but the question that lies at the heart of the HJ.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman · 06-07-2002, 02:01 AM

Its a shame that this thread started on fallacious question that also misrepresented the ideas Layman purpotedly read from other authors. Bill has demonstrated that very well. Mealymouthed Layman of course denied it.
Even Peter Kirby also demonstrated that Layman was insincere (Layman formulated his initial
question in the title to treat McDowell as a very serious scholar but:

Quote:

Layman wrote: "Since I have never in my life referred to McDowell as an authority on
anything, I really have no interest in defending him. He's more of a whipping boy of the skeptic
than a serious participant in New Testament studies."
peterkirby: Maybe it would have been better if you had not put his name in the topic title.

Vorkosigan and others have also demonstrated that besides the argumentum ad numerum that was
behind Laymans first argument, the consensus on matters concerning biblical scolarship doesnt
hold much weight. As Vorkosigan put it:

Quote:

The consensus on the historicity of Jesus is irrelevant. Evolutionists can appeal to a proven
methodology backed by overwhelming evidence. NT scholars have absolutely nothing to support their
consensus. Conclusion? The "consensus" exists for social and not scholarly reasons.

Lets hear no more of it.

We can glean more out of this thread if we focus on this testimonium flavianum question. I have read Bill's arguments on it and Vorkosigan's arguments and my position on the matter is that whether based on our arguments, we believe it was partly forged or fabricated wholecloth, that is
just a quibble. So long as there is any evidence that it has been tampered with, it loses any credibility and cannot therefore be used as hard evidence for the historicity of Jesus. That is my position.
In any case, the parts that matter or are relevant to Jesus are the ones that have been fabricated. The rest have no evidentiary value in the attestation of the existence of a historical
Jesus.

As Koy, (despite his polemical and negative sentiments) pointed out, even if there were evidence that a man called Jesus existed, we would just have proved that a man called Jesus existed. So our main focus really would then be, are the supernatural claims real? Did he walk on water? Can a man go 40 days wandering without food and still survive? Did he rise from the dead? Is the concept of virgin birth plausible? Does God exist? Was he the son of God? What kind of biological function fertilized the egg in Marys womb? Why did Jesus not travel outside Israel to preach the "word"?
And after all those questions have been answered, we will need to then determine: was Jesus a man or a god? If he was a man, does he fit the characteristics of a man, in terms of abilities and deeds?

As a matter of interest, I have been refuting a section of McDowell's Christs Resurrection - Hoax or History
chapter in his bookThe New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and he actually used the Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 255, No. 11, March 21, 1986) to support his theories about Jesus' death. Isnt that just fascinating? This is an excerpt from my critique:

Quote:

McDowell then states that an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association
concluded from the Gospel accounts that Jesus certainly had died before he was removed from the
cross.

Then he quotes Samuel Houghton, M.D., the great physiologist from the University of Houghton,
relates his view on the physical cause of Christ,s death;
Describing what happened after the soldier pierced Christ’s side with his spear, he says the way the blood and water flowed in the manner they did, indicated that Christ had died from heart
rupture.

McDowell then quotes Samuel Chandler who says that all the evangelists agree.
Essentially, we are being asked to believe that someone who walked on water, went without food for 40 days, healed lepers, made the blind see, and raised people from the dead died from exhaustion, which induced fatal heart rupture. The questions is, why should we believe that someone is immortal (try 40 days without food) and yet at the same time believe that same person died? Isn’t it logically inconsistent to do so?
Why did "the cross" kill him? isn’t this similar to the ubiquitous legends of people who could
not be killed by spears except when the spears were directed at their shadows? Or vampire-like
stories that say guns can’t kill them but garlic powder can? Doesn’t this similarity indicate some mythical bearing for this story?
The apologetics above are clearly contriving "theories" about what killed Christ while in reality, it does not make sense that merely carrying a cross and being nailed on it could kill him.
Secondly there are many stories of people who survived crucifixions in the first century and we
have not been given a reason why Jesus could not have survived YET, his legs were not even
broken.
Thirdly, we are told that Pilate doubted that christ had died. This indicates that even someone
familiar with what resurrection entailed actually doubted that Jesus has died so soon. If Pilate, who was present, and was a Roman (thus familiar with exactly what crucifixion entailed), and yet he doubted, we must have very good reasons not to doubt too. McDowell has provided none.
There has been no good argument given to explain away why Pilate doubted.
Fourthly, the centurions were not medical doctors and were not competent to declare that Jesus was dead. Their pronouncement that Jesus had died was thus not reliable.
Fifth, there is no clear medical axiom that says exactly the manner in which the blood and water flows when someone dies of heart rupture. It is baseless to claim that Jesus died of heart rupture because of the said flow. The lack of support for this contrived "theory" is clear even in McDowell's book. Any medical doctors interested in explaining how Jesus died given there have no cadaver, just supposedly an empty tomb and a story would not be worth their salt. Pathologists need more than a story and an empty tomb to determine the cause of death! They might as well explain the cause of death of Lots wife (who changed into a pillar of salt)!
The same Journal (Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 255, No. 11, March 21, 1986)
also stipulated that when Jesus was sweating blood, it was due to his ruptured facial blood vessels. It adds that under extreme stress facial blood vessels can rupture resulting in "sweating blood". Is it human experience to see people under extreme stress (firing squads, crucifixions etc) sweating blood? What amount of pressure would break the skin (considering its
tough elastic nature)? Even if blood vessels were to burst, why facial blood vessels are they the
weakest blood vessels? Does stress manifest itself in the blood? This preposterous claim undermines any credibility the medical journal could otherwise have.

Sixth, the agony of mind is said to have caused the supposed heart rupture. Agony of mind? Why would mere nails and a wooden cross cause agony of mind to someone who could spend 40 days without food in the desert? Why would someone who many times predicted the way the scenes would suddenly get "agony of mind" when his prophecies came true? Is it the nature of people to suffer "agony of mind" when things happen exactly as they expected? If Jesus was afraid of the pain, then the he would suffer "agony of mind" at the mere contemplation of what was impending, NOT when it actually was taking place. Excruciating pain would be more convincing compared to agony of mind. This "agony of mind" hypothesis is just contrived to suit the "blood and water" flow and it simply does not fit.
Besides, the evangelists offer conflicting versions about what Jesus' "last words" were. This implies that either one of them is lying, or both are lying or they simply got it wrong. Either way, their testimony is suspect.

I invite you sharp minds to offer your critiques. Both at me and McDowell.

Lastly, these people arguing for partial interpolation, whats their main argument? what makes partial interpolation admissible? Doesnt this remind one of the girl who got pregnant, then when she was asked by her outraged parents, she said she was only a little pregnant?

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]

Sturgeon · 06-09-2002, 05:18 AM

For enthusiasts of this topic who want to delve further check out:

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/</a>

Toto · 06-10-2002, 11:42 AM

I didn't think that the theist faction had a case, but I didn't expect to see them cave in so totally.

To summarize, Layman found an old reference in the II library that he read to say that anyone who believed that the Testimonium was accurate was dishonest or duped. His reading of the passage was challenged, and everyone admitted that *some* intelligent people think that the Testimonium provides some evidence of Jesus.

Then he and Bede tried to turn the tables and claim that anyone who rejected the entire Testimonium was a fringe nut-case, and that there was a consensus of right thinking scholars that the Testimonium was evidence of the historicity of Jesus. Unfortunately for them, Peter Kirby had just surveyed the evidence and had come to the considered conclusion that the entire passage in the Testimonium mentioning Jesus was a forgery. And it further came out that historians who posit a historical Jesus have no particular methodology that leads to that conclusion.

Koy doesn't see how this is important, and maybe it isn't to most of us. But I have known some missionaries who start out converting people with the "historically recognized fact" that Jesus existed and was a great philosopher, and work their way up to a complete conversion from there. If they can't even get that foot in the door, some people might be saved from joining the cult.

Jayhawker Soule · 06-10-2002, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
... Unfortunately for them, Peter Kirby had just surveyed the evidence and had come to the considered conclusion that the entire passage in the Testimonium mentioning Jesus was a forgery.

What did I miss?

Quote:

[Kirby wrote} Proverbs 18:17 may well have been commenting on arguments concerning the Testimonium: "The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." The present author was once firmly convinced that both references in the Antiquities were authentic. After reading the study of Ken Olson that shows the vocabulary of the Testimonium to be not Josephan but rather Eusebian, I was inclined to regard both references as spurious. But now that I have found evidence that the reference in 20.9.1 does not require an earlier reference to Jesus, I am presently persuaded to regard the shorter reference as authentic. [emphasis added - RD]

Toto · 06-10-2002, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
what did I miss?

There are two referencess to Jesus in Josephus - a paragraph in the Testimonium and an indirect reference in another work to James the brother of the Lord. Most scholars accept the second, shorter reference as untainted by forgery, although Doherty has argued that "Jesus" was inserted, and James was not a biological brother of Jesus, but as the head of a group known as the Brotherhood of the Lord was known himself as the Brother of the Lord.

Peter Kirby accepts that the reference in 20.9.1 to "James the brother of Jesus called the Christ" is genuine, and indicates that there was a historical Jesus. (This is the "shorter reference".) As he indicated on this thread, he rejects the Testimonium as a forgery.

06-10-2002, 01:10 PM

Toto, I do hold that anyone who thinks Jesus didn't exist is a fringe figure. However, I never said that rejection of the entire TF was unacceptable and neither, I think, did Layman.

As the dead writer Layman started off with has been universally derided here and even you are asking for his work to be amended, I'd also say Layman has scored his point. But don't worry, I'd no more expect you to see that than an Argentine to see that Michael Owen was fouled in the area.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Toto · 06-10-2002, 01:32 PM

Hi Bede, here's what you said:

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
Gentlemen,

The Josephus passage is something about which there is wide agreement among contemporary scholars of all colours. The agreement is that it is Josephan with Christian interpolations. Peter Kirby (I think on the Jesus Mysteries list) showed that of current books he'd read, only amateur Jesus Mythers said the TF was a complete fabrication. A case can be made for this (and lets face it, sceptics have been busting a gut trying) but scholars basically disagree. No amount of Michael's nameless orientals or dead white Europeans is going to change that.

Ken Olsen is the only person I've seen who has put together a scholarly argument for the Eusebian forgery and the idea he was some sort of arch liar is simply an anti-Christian myth.

While it is possible to disagree with the academic concensus it would be honest for the likes of Peter and Michael to admit they are going out on a limb and most experts think they are wrong.

And even if the TJ is totally forged, the case the Jesus's existence is still historically watertight as, again, almost any scholar will tell you.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and confusion</a>

We're still waiting for that "watertight" proof that any scholar could give for Jesus' existence.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

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

06-09-2002, 05:18 AM	#145
Sturgeon New Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 3	For enthusiasts of this topic who want to delve further check out: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/</a>

06-10-2002, 11:42 AM	#146
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I didn't think that the theist faction had a case, but I didn't expect to see them cave in so totally. To summarize, Layman found an old reference in the II library that he read to say that anyone who believed that the Testimonium was accurate was dishonest or duped. His reading of the passage was challenged, and everyone admitted that some intelligent people think that the Testimonium provides some evidence of Jesus. Then he and Bede tried to turn the tables and claim that anyone who rejected the entire Testimonium was a fringe nut-case, and that there was a consensus of right thinking scholars that the Testimonium was evidence of the historicity of Jesus. Unfortunately for them, Peter Kirby had just surveyed the evidence and had come to the considered conclusion that the entire passage in the Testimonium mentioning Jesus was a forgery. And it further came out that historians who posit a historical Jesus have no particular methodology that leads to that conclusion. Koy doesn't see how this is important, and maybe it isn't to most of us. But I have known some missionaries who start out converting people with the "historically recognized fact" that Jesus existed and was a great philosopher, and work their way up to a complete conversion from there. If they can't even get that foot in the door, some people might be saved from joining the cult.

06-10-2002, 01:10 PM	#149
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Toto, I do hold that anyone who thinks Jesus didn't exist is a fringe figure. However, I never said that rejection of the entire TF was unacceptable and neither, I think, did Layman. As the dead writer Layman started off with has been universally derided here and even you are asking for his work to be amended, I'd also say Layman has scored his point. But don't worry, I'd no more expect you to see that than an Argentine to see that Michael Owen was fouled in the area. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.