Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 495 of 560 (620939)
06-21-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by PaulK
06-21-2011 6:17 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
I mention Earl Doherty as a person who is well-known for arguing AGAINST the existence of Jesus.
I don't recall you mentioning Earl Doherty except as someone related to the debate, and you mentioned him in the context of Mythical Jesus proponents not knowing anything about the arguments in favor of the Historical Jesus.
If you now admit that you were using that context to mislead people as to which position it is that Earl Doherty - whoever that is - actually argues in support of, that's just another example of the great dishonesty with which you've prosecuted this debate.
And note - you didn't answer any of my questions. Is Earl Doherty in this discussion? Have his arguments been put forward for consideration?
Yes or no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by PaulK, posted 06-21-2011 6:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2011 1:54 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 497 of 560 (620941)
06-21-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Jon
06-21-2011 6:16 PM


Re: Q
There's a difference between Q material and Q source.
The Q source should contain Q material, right?
Depends on whose debate you're talking about.
Oh. Well, since I guess you need to have it explained to you - I'm talking about the debate we're having in this thread.
You know, the one where your side is expected to provide evidence that supports the Gospels' claim of the existence of Jesus.
It depends on how much corroboration you're talking about.
It's either corrborative or it isn't.
If the minimal corroboration is just the existence of an historical Jesus, then multiple sources with an historical Jesus as one of their common premises certainly meets the criteria of being corroboratory.
Ok, but as you've explained, the Q source, Matthew, and Luke aren't "multiple sources"; they're multiple versions of the same material.
If two people simply repeat a lie I told them, the three of us do not "corroborate" each other. We're not three sources; we're a single source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 6:16 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 7:08 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 498 of 560 (620944)
06-21-2011 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Jon
06-21-2011 6:49 PM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
Everything we have from Paul is in the form of letters, written to people who are already followers of the Jesus movement. This makes it difficult to expect much discussion of matters early Christians would have considered undisputedone such matter could well have been the historicity of Jesus.
Well, ok.
So then Paul can't be an independent source for evidence for the existence of Jesus, if he's simply taking his fellow Christians at their word.
So, of the sum total of evidence presented that supposedly corroborates the existence of Jesus, which was:
quote:
The Q source
*The Gospels
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
*The Pauline Epistles
Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
First Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Tacitus
Josephus
and now taking out everything that has been demonstrated not to actually be a source of evidence, but either merely a repetition of claims already made or a source we can't trust to actually be legitimate, we're left with:
quote:
The Q Source
*The Gospels
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
*The Pauline Epistles
Romans
First Corinthians
Second Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
First Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Tacitus
Josephus

So, basically you guys have been blowing smoke straight up my ass this entire time: the only evidence that Jesus ever actually lived is that he's mentioned in Mark and John.
Oh, but wait - Mark wasn't written until 64 AD, and John until 90 AD. So those can't be independent sources, either, since they're both written way too late to refer or be based on anything anybody actually observed at the time Jesus was supposedly alive.
So really, there's nothing. Which is what I've been saying all along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 6:49 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 7:16 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 500 of 560 (620946)
06-21-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Modulous
06-21-2011 6:31 PM


Re: foundations
If we include the ones by caffiene (Message 448) the score is a little different. Feel free to examine the major world religions that propose a historical founder, and tally up the score yourself.
Er, wait. You're still misunderstanding the claim. How could I claim that any real-world religion had a fictitious founder? Who started the religion, after all, if the founder didn't exist?
The claim is that the central figure of most world religions is a fictional person, and that's completely accurate, even if you don't grant me Jesus (which I wouldn't expect you to.)
To continue to claim that it is extraodinary for a person to be at the centre of a religion about a person pretty much ends the discussion I think.
Again you've misunderstood the claim. What I claim is extraordinary is that a religion - which is universally an exercise in falsehood, myth, and superstition - could produce or accurately reproduce the truth. I mean Christianity couldn't even get heredity right. We're supposed to believe they got anything right about Jesus? Nonsense.
You've misunderstood me quite badly, Mod, but don't worry - I don't hold it against you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2011 6:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Modulous, posted 06-21-2011 7:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 503 of 560 (620949)
06-21-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by Jon
06-21-2011 7:08 PM


Re: Q
They are still not the same thing.
Never said they were.
And this is the issue we have with information from the triple tradition. But not everything in the synoptics is from the triple tradition.
If you insist.
Regardless, what is the evidence for the Gospels' claim that there was a real person called Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 7:08 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 7:27 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 505 of 560 (620952)
06-21-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Jon
06-21-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Q
Why do you insist on moving goal posts?
Jon, the goalposts have never changed. Here they are again - what is the evidence that supports the Gospels' claim that Jesus was a real person who existed in history?
Same question I've been asking for a hundred posts. It's not a moving target.
You raise all of these points; folk like me spend good time going through them and addressing them.
I don't believe you've even once satisfactorily addressed a point I've raised. You just spout nonsense and irrelevant Bible history that seems like an answer, but doesn't actually provide any evidence. It's of a piece with a century of Jesus scholarship, frankly.
Pardon me if I seem impatient, but I am. I just cut the end of my finger off with a mandoline trying to make dinner and I'm done fucking around with you. Present the evidence or GTFO, as they say these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 7:27 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 506 of 560 (620953)
06-21-2011 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by Jon
06-21-2011 7:16 PM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
How did you ever manage to draw this out of what I said? It is clear that Paul never met an historical Jesus
Then why were the Pauline epistles brought forward as "independent evidence of the existence of Jesus" if Paul doesn't have any knowledge of whether Jesus lived or not? What the hell is his testimony worth? Nothing!
The issue was whether or not Paul believed the Jesus in his letters to have been an actual person or not.
Of course he fucking believed it. Don't be stupid. He believed it just the same as all modern Christians believe it and for the exact same reasons - as a matter of faith.
I don't give a shit about Paul's faith or yours. I'm asking what evidence can be found for the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and now you've admitted that the Pauline epistles aren't that kind of evidence at all.
Well, fine. That makes them irrelevant to the discussion. Why on Earth were they even brought up?
What you're arguing is that what we have isn't credible.
Yes! Just as the testimony of a liar isn't testimony at all. If all the evidence lacks credibility then there is no evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 7:16 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 7:51 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 524 of 560 (621255)
06-24-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Jon
06-21-2011 7:51 PM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
I was replying specifically to the points you brought up that you say you got from watching a show in which it was argued that Paul never claims Jesus to have been an historical person.
If you are no longer interested in discussing that matter, then we can drop this line.
I was mostly interested only in the Historical response to the claim. Like I said it was something I had never heard before. (I'm not sure that I'm convinced by your reply, but thank you for addressing it, regardless.)
That is not the same as not having knowledge of whether Jesus lived or not.
What would be the source of this knowledge?
Then why in the Hell did you make a post asking if there was anything to the position that Paul didn't perhaps believe Jesus to have existed on Earth?
Well, wait. You're getting two claims mixed up. Obviously Paul thinks that Jesus was a "real" person, but that doesn't mean that Paul claimed that Jesus was a historical person who had lived on Earth. Similarly I would assume that Paul thinks God is real, but that God was not a historical person who lived on Earth.
It's the claim of the documentary that Paul doesn't specifically claim the genuine historical existence of Jesus, only that Jesus is a genuine spiritual entity. That, at the very least, is further reason not to give Paul any particular consideration as another source that can corroborate the existence of Jesus.
Just don't reply to this post and I'll know you don't care about Flemming's points anymore.
I'm sorry. I don't want to give the impression that I don't care. I was interested in them, but mostly as an aside, and you did me a great favor by addressing them. Very interesting! Not saying I'm convinced but thank you for replying to them.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Jon, posted 06-21-2011 7:51 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by Jon, posted 06-24-2011 5:24 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 526 of 560 (621258)
06-24-2011 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by PaulK
06-22-2011 1:54 AM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
I mentioned him in the context of Mythical Jesus proponents not knowing the arguments for a Mythical Jesus.
Nonsense, and a stupid claim, to boot. How would Mythical Jesus proponents not know the arguments for a mythical Jesus? How would they simultaneously make arguments and not know the arguments they were making?
At the time I wrote the Summary post, the answer was NO.
Then what on Earth is the relevance of a minor figure who appears only once by name on the Wikipedia entry for "Jesus myth theory"?
Prove to me that's not just an example of well-poisoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 508 by PaulK, posted 06-22-2011 1:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2011 5:06 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 527 of 560 (621260)
06-24-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by Modulous
06-24-2011 10:15 AM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
This gives us 'Yeshua' or 'Yeshoshua', if we translate this into English without going through Greek and Latin first it is 'Joshua'.
I don't think most people consider "Joshua" and "Jesus" to be the same name, frankly. Even in the Bible they're not the same name.
I'm just not finding this explanation very compelling. Obviously names can change in the retelling but there's no obvious connection between a historical figure named "Yeshua" and a religious figure named "Jesus." And all of that ignores that there's no evidence for this Yeshua, either.
the miraculous and the supernatural are not considered historical.
It's certainly considered historical by Christians, who constitute the bulk of "Historical Jesus" proponents. But, we recognize that this isn't your position.
But here's the problem. You don't have any explanation for how "Yeshua", who did no miracles, came to be revered as "Jesus", who did do miracles, except for that there was a great deal of fabrication, lying, mythmaking, and storytelling involved in the origin of Christianity and the Jesus mythology. But, once you've opened the door to fabrication, lying, mythmaking, and storytelling, there's no evidence to suggest where to draw the line about what parts are myth and what parts are history. So it's just as reasonable, probably more so, to draw the line behind a fully-mythical Jesus than to draw the line at a mostly-mythical Jesus with a whole lot of post-hoc rationalization for why there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that he ever lived.
Don't get me wrong - post-hoc rationalizations can occasionally be right! It's just that they're not related to what is right. If they're ever right, they're right by accident, because post-hoc rationalization is just guessing. It's not actually evidence.
While their personhood is considered historical in many cases, the miraculous claims are not considered historical.
Its worth pointing out that they are considered historical by the Catholic Church, which actually has experts tasked with the purpose of determining which miracles are myths and which "actually happened." (I don't know how it works, either, but I'm guessing it has something to do with a lowered bar for evidence.) And it's worth pointing out that people who argue against the Historic Jesus aren't just arguing against people like you, who suppose a non-supernatural, non-miraculous "Historical Yeshua", but with genuine Christians who do argue on behalf of a truly Historical Jesus Christ who did everything ascribed to him in the Bible. Indeed there's a bit of a cottage industry of secular Jesus apologists who assume not only the existence of a Historical Jesus but that his various miracles actually did happen, or appeared to happen, as a function of natural processes not understood at the time or First Century techniques of illusion and misdirection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 10:15 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Modulous, posted 06-26-2011 11:14 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 528 of 560 (621263)
06-24-2011 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 522 by Modulous
06-24-2011 3:54 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
Are you saying that the Gospels are original compositions
They certainly claim to be original compositions and no primary source that they could have been based on now exists. While it may be possible to interpolate between the Gospels the minimal aspects of a hypothetical primary source that would be necessary to parsimoniously explain the Gospels, it's not possible to use that interpolation to explain anything else. There's nothing about the Q source necessary to explain the Gospels that also necessarily provides evidence for the existence of Jesus; it's just that, the source being inaccessible to examination, it rather conveniently can be asserted to contain whatever "evidence" is necessary to corroborate the Historical Jesus, and oh, more's the pity it's not here for you to see!
It's a shell game, not evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 3:54 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 530 of 560 (621267)
06-24-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by PaulK
06-24-2011 5:06 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
You mean what is the relevance of giving an example to support the point I was making ?
How is it in any way an example of the point you were making, and not an example of the point I was making about poisoning the well?
What's your evidence that Earl Doherty is anything but a minor figure in Jesus myth theory, instead of a voice so prominent that only an ignoramus would be ignorant of him?
And again - what's the relevance of playing "Who's Who Among Jesus Denyers" to the question of the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2011 5:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Jon, posted 06-24-2011 5:39 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 534 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2011 5:40 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 539 of 560 (621575)
06-27-2011 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 534 by PaulK
06-24-2011 5:40 PM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
The point I was making is that you, and Panda and the rest had little knowledge of the arguments that had been put forward for a mythical Jesus, and Earl Doherty is one - just one - of the writers you might have cited.
Cited for what? The case for the mythical Jesus is nothing more than the fact that there's no rational case for a historical Jesus.
It hardly requires name-dropping Earl Doherty, or anybody else, to make that case. Again it's just well-poisoning. You're not able to produce even a single example of evidence in support of the historical position, so it's necessary to attack us personally by equating us with "Creationists", even though personal attacks in lieu of evidence is the number one tactic of creationists.
It's hard for me to imagine, now, a time when I had any respect for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2011 5:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2011 2:11 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 540 of 560 (621576)
06-27-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by Modulous
06-26-2011 11:14 AM


Re: miracles and names
As there are saints that are considered historical by secular historians but are given supernatural powers by the religious.
And presumably that's on the basis of some kind of evidence, not merely on taking First Century claims at face value. If it's on the basis of no more evidence than for the historicity of Christ, then there's reason to re-evaluate that conclusion of historical existence for those saints, as well.
Frankly, the more you try to make the case that it's common for secular historians to assume the real existence of historical figures on the basis of no evidence, the more you only prove to me that the state of modern historical scholarship is very dysfunctional, indeed. The only rational basis on which to assert the real historicity of any putative individual is on the basis of evidence. If there is none, conclusions of historicity aren't supportable.
But there are arguments as to why some things can be considered historical and other things can be dismissed.
Unless the argument is "on the basis of the evidence" the argument is irrelevant. There are no valid reasons to believe anything, except on the basis of the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Modulous, posted 06-26-2011 11:14 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 543 of 560 (622662)
07-05-2011 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by PaulK
06-27-2011 2:11 AM


Re: Summary: Jesus Myther's and Creationists
The fact that that assertion is the best that you can come up with does not mean that there are no better arguments.
By definition there are no better arguments. The only possible argument for the nonexistence of something that could possibly exist is that there is no evidence that it exists. There could have been a historical Jesus. It's just that there's no evidence there was, which best supports the conclusion that he did not exist.
Your case - as you admit - is simply a dogmatically held opinion.
You're a liar, because I've not "admitted" any such thing. Your case is clearly the dogmatic opinion; if it weren't you'd have been able to answer the call for evidence.
I haven't changed.
So you've always been a liar? More's the pity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2011 2:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2011 1:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024