Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 07-24-2013, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I"m not sure what you are disputing.
.

This

Quote:

Jesus' own belief that he was the Messiah-King

While it is possible, I dont find that plausible as written.

I think he viewed himself as what he was, a traveling teacher who viewed the temple as corrupt under Roman oppression.

Its my opinion he was not popular before his death. Had he viewed himself as a Messiah I think his legend would have went back further then the last week of his life. The gospels in general, only deal with the last week of his life at the core.

Adam · 07-24-2013, 05:30 PM

When you are on even shakier ground than usual, you at least label it as your opinion. That's an improvement.

TedM · 07-24-2013, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I"m not sure what you are disputing.
.

This

Quote:

Jesus' own belief that he was the Messiah-King

While it is possible, I dont find that plausible as written.

I see. I guess it depends on whether all the writings of his sayings/doings prior to his last week of life are completely fictional. If they aren't, then the issue is whether the indications that he thought he was the fulfillment of the kingdom of God that JTB talked about were fictional or not. There are lots of indications (bridegroom, forgives sins, healer, predicted own death multiple times, etcc). They could have indicated a sense of mission, or they could have been retrofit to his ministry after his death.

Quote:

Its my opinion he was not popular before his death. Had he viewed himself as a Messiah I think his legend would have went back further then the last week of his life. The gospels in general, only deal with the last week of his life at the core.

I'm not sure why you say this. The baptism by John, calling and sending out of disciples, many parables, many healings, etc.. are a lot more than the last week of his life. They may be fictional, but they do exist, even if to give the last week meaning..I think the resurrection belief is tough to explain if he was not somewhat popular prior to that week. For sure, the more popular he was, the easier it is to explain.

outhouse · 07-24-2013, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

the fulfillment of the kingdom of God that JTB talked about

.

Which the whole premise is debatable due to the contradictions the authors left us.

Remember this is a Hellenist retelling or remaking of a Jewish version of what was being taught decades in the past within another different culture.

Quote:

I'm not sure why you say this.

Because there is very little in our oldest account [Gmark] that goes into any real detail a week before his death.

Quote:

The baptism by John,

Is prior, it is a embarrassment. John was his teacher, and John was also popular, and look what it got him.

Its my opinion our boy knew better then to follow that trail, he knew where those tracks went. I don't think he wanted his head separated from his shoulders

Quote:

..I think the resurrection belief is tough to explain if he was not somewhat popular prior to that week

Death explains this tradition, its required.

Remember, they are factually building divinity after the fact. Decades after the fact.

I don't think it was very long after his death that resurrection mythology started, its just a opinion. It opens up many cans of worms, Physical or spiritual resurrection? missing body? miss identification? roll the dice.

outhouse · 07-24-2013, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

When you are on even shakier ground than usual, .

Nothing you could refute, but your welcome to try if you don't copy and paste pages of scripture.

andrewcriddle · 07-24-2013, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The analogy between historical figures like Alexander the Great and Augustus, compared to Jesus of Nazareth is weak. Let's compare the quality of one of the later sources for Alexander the Great to one for Jesus of Nazareth:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrian

It seems to me that Ptolemy and Aristobulus are the most trustworthy writers on Alexander's conquests, because the latter shared Alexander's campaigns, and the former -Ptolemy- in addition to this advantage, was himself a king, and it is more disgraceful for a king to tell lies than for anybody else.

I took this excerpt from here: Alexander the Great, the "good" sources

Let's compare that to the work often categorized as the work of an historian (true, mostly by apologists):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. 3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.

I took that from here: The Gospel of Luke

So let's compare.

First, what do we know about the authors themselves? Well, in the case of Alexander the Great's biography, we know quite a bit. His name was Lucius Flavius Arrianus . We know when he lived. We know what he did for a living. Importantly, we have other works by Arrian by which we can get an idea of his trustworthiness. Also, knowing who he was makes it possible to evaluate his work and the degree to which we accept what he says.

On the other hand, we don't even know the true name of the author of the Gospel of Luke. We don't know who Luke was. We don't know who he wrote for (who is Theophilus?) or what his purpose was. The only other work purported to be by this author is Acts of the Apostles, itself a work of questionable veracity. We know almost nothing about the identity of the author of the Gospel of Luke.

Second, both authors cite their sources. Arrian cites Ptolemy and Aristobulus. We know those sources as well and can further evaluate claims that are based on their reports. One thing we know, they were contemporaries and eyewitnesses. Whether reliable or not, they are at least that. All three of these figures are independently attested in the historical record.

On the other hand, Luke cites "the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning." We don't know who these eyewitnesses are. So compounding the problem that we don't know who "Luke" is, we don't know who his sources are. We have no way to independently assess the reliability of Luke or his sources. Further, Luke says these are accounts are by eyewitnesses and servants of "the word." What exactly does that mean?

I think even right there, we can see that the analogy fails. I could go on...

Arrian writes 400 years after the events he describes. This explains his need to provide sources for his work. The great length of time between Alexander and Arrian and the very limited extent to which he tells us precisely what in his story comes from precisely which source makes it very difficult for us to evaluate his work for historical accuracy. (Since Arrian is so late the value of his account depends entirely on the value of his written sources and the way in which he used them.)

In general, ancient historical writers writing about events within the previous century do not tell us what their sources were.

Andrew Criddle

Grog · 07-24-2013, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The analogy between historical figures like Alexander the Great and Augustus, compared to Jesus of Nazareth is weak. Let's compare the quality of one of the later sources for Alexander the Great to one for Jesus of Nazareth:

I took this excerpt from here: Alexander the Great, the "good" sources

Let's compare that to the work often categorized as the work of an historian (true, mostly by apologists):

I took that from here: The Gospel of Luke

So let's compare.

First, what do we know about the authors themselves? Well, in the case of Alexander the Great's biography, we know quite a bit. His name was Lucius Flavius Arrianus . We know when he lived. We know what he did for a living. Importantly, we have other works by Arrian by which we can get an idea of his trustworthiness. Also, knowing who he was makes it possible to evaluate his work and the degree to which we accept what he says.

On the other hand, we don't even know the true name of the author of the Gospel of Luke. We don't know who Luke was. We don't know who he wrote for (who is Theophilus?) or what his purpose was. The only other work purported to be by this author is Acts of the Apostles, itself a work of questionable veracity. We know almost nothing about the identity of the author of the Gospel of Luke.

Second, both authors cite their sources. Arrian cites Ptolemy and Aristobulus. We know those sources as well and can further evaluate claims that are based on their reports. One thing we know, they were contemporaries and eyewitnesses. Whether reliable or not, they are at least that. All three of these figures are independently attested in the historical record.

On the other hand, Luke cites "the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning." We don't know who these eyewitnesses are. So compounding the problem that we don't know who "Luke" is, we don't know who his sources are. We have no way to independently assess the reliability of Luke or his sources. Further, Luke says these are accounts are by eyewitnesses and servants of "the word." What exactly does that mean?

I think even right there, we can see that the analogy fails. I could go on...

Arrian writes 400 years after the events he describes. This explains his need to provide sources for his work. The great length of time between Alexander and Arrian and the very limited extent to which he tells us precisely what in his story comes from precisely which source makes it very difficult for us to evaluate his work for historical accuracy. (Since Arrian is so late the value of his account depends entirely on the value of his written sources and the way in which he used them.)

In general, ancient historical writers writing about events within the previous century do not tell us what their sources were.

Andrew Criddle

My point wasn't that everything Arrian repoerts is accurate. I am addressing sources for the mere existence of Alexander compared to those for Jesus. I chose to compare whT is arguably the best source for Jesus to one of many sources fof Alexander.

TedM · 07-25-2013, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

..I think the resurrection belief is tough to explain if he was not somewhat popular prior to that week

Death explains this tradition, its required.

Death doesn't explain it. Everyone dies. But not everyone is considered resurrected.

Quote:

I don't think it was very long after his death that resurrection mythology started, its just a opinion. It opens up many cans of worms, Physical or spiritual resurrection? missing body? miss identification? roll the dice.

You must have a reason for the opinion that it happened fairly fast. If it DID happen quickly and he was not popular-perhaps hardly even known prior to the last week, it is quite difficult to explain. What other Messiah claimant who was killed was considered resurrected soon afterwards? Personally I think that if he did get killed during passover, the obvious 'sacrificial lamb' motiff was most likely a strong catalyst and the more popular he had been, the stronger it was. Take away the timing and location of Passover and the story is much weaker.

outhouse · 07-25-2013, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You must have a reason for the opinion that it happened fairly fast..

Because of how fast this movement spread throughout the Diaspora

Quote:

If it DID happen quickly and he was not popular-perhaps hardly even known prior to the last week, it is quite difficult to explain.

No, I dont think so.

He was martyred that weekend, that was all the popularity that was needed to start the legends. It generated oral tradition that people took home with them, as they left going back to their homes in far corners of the Diaspora.

I dont think how quickly resurrection mythology started even addresses how popular he was prior to the Passover. Think about it, he was a small town boy traveling between small oppressed villages. Itsd my opinion he was a nobody prior to the last week of his life.

Quote:

Personally I think that if he did get killed during passover, the obvious 'sacrificial lamb' motiff was most likely a strong catalyst and the more popular he had been, the stronger it was.

Again the strength of his martyrdom wasnt due to any teaching or healing he had done before. he was martyred soley, in my opinion for his actions in the temple in front of massive crowds.

Were talking about almost half a million people in attendance, with thousands of teachers and healers present all teaching their own thing as well as not liking the crooked governement and Roman oppression.

Quote:

Take away the timing and location of Passover and the story is much weaker

Agree, to the point without it, there would be no Jesus.

TedM · 07-25-2013, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If it DID happen quickly and he was not popular-perhaps hardly even known prior to the last week, it is quite difficult to explain.

No, I dont think so.

He was martyred that weekend, that was all the popularity that was needed to start the legends. It generated oral tradition that people took home with them, as they left going back to their homes in far corners of the Diaspora.

I dont think how quickly resurrection mythology started even addresses how popular he was prior to the Passover. Think about it, he was a small town boy traveling between small oppressed villages. Itsd my opinion he was a nobody prior to the last week of his life.

Would he be seen as a martyr? Perhaps. But he also would be seen as a trouble-maker, as probably was Judas the Galilean and the Egyptian. So, what's different? Lots of people? Even if you are right, how does a martyr who got killed go from that to being resurrected? Why would this nobody martyr not remain dead?

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

07-24-2013, 05:30 PM	#72
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	When you are on even shakier ground than usual, you at least label it as your opinion. That's an improvement.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.