|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
AZP writes: How about to "certainty", then. If you want to make an "I believe..." statement, fine.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I think you're referring to Acts, which is usually attributed to Luke. And I don't think there was any role that involved taking Christians to Damascus for persecution. Rather, Paul sought permission to go to Damascus and bring back Christians as prisoners.
According to Paul, but I think Paul's writings should be considered suspect. It's not possible to know with any assurance which parts of his epistles are true and which are not. When I think of Paul I keep in mind the charismatic preachers of today. Honesty is not a word that comes readily to mind.
No one can say, as documented fact, what this someone did or said. All we have are the stories, suspect apocryphal. Do you mean the gospels now?
The stories make this place-holder Jesus seem like a loving flower child who liked to piss off his elders. Stories. It was all oral history, so it seems, since there was no parchment with any of these myths inked in until Mark (whoever) dropped his gospel. Everything after is suspect copy with embellishment. Especially that nutjob John. That boy was higher than I am and it burned his brain. Okay, yes, the gospels. Only those parts of the gospels that can't be traced back to Paul's epistles could be considered oral history, which I guess is by far the larger portion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
quote: I see two statements of fact. What do you see?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
AZP writes:
I see one statement of fact and one muddled sentence which I take to mean that there had to be a Jesus character for a religion to form around. I see two statements of fact. What do you see? Well maybe or maybe Jesus was a pure invention by a group of motivated rebels trying to create an uprising or simply looking for the main chance. But on all normal standards of evidence we have to say that we don't know. Or that you believe...Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I think you're referring to Acts, which is usually attributed to Luke. And I don't think there was any role that involved taking Christians to Damascus for persecution. Rather, Paul sought permission to go to Damascus and bring back Christians as prisoners. Thank you.
Do you mean the gospels now? Actually I was thinking Q. To me Q was the oral tradition that developed in the church prior to the gospels.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
I agree there's a scholarly consensus on his historicity, but I believe that's only because most Bible scholars are believers. Yes, that is the case.
Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, accepts the historicity of Jesus, but he's not the only non-believing Biblical scholar. I wonder what the consensus among them is. The same. A historical Jesus, just a rather more modest one than many of their Christian colleagues. The same amongst Jewish scholars. I find that telling. These people have no skin in the game after all.
But the comment from me was longer than what you quoted and wasn't about historicity. It was about the range of scholarly opinion that extends from the Jesus of miracles all the way to no Jesus at all. To reiterate, the number of professional scholars who take mythicism seriously can be counted on one hand - if you take a very generous definition of "scholar".
There is agreement on nothing but the baptism and the crucifixion, which is pretty slim pickings to hang a historicity hat on, and even those seem historically questionable to me. Both of those are good examples of problematic elements though, the Criterion of Embarrassment applies. John the Baptist anointing the actual Messiah makes little sense. That makes me more inclined to believe it might have happened. And the crucifixion is especially problematic for early Christians (especially those who still considered themselves Jews). Crucifixion was a shameful death. The Romans intended it as the ultimate humiliation, not just death, but a horrifying and shameful death. Jews of the time would also have seen being nailed up as a shameful death, an outsider's death. This was not what anyone had expected from a Messiah. This would have ben a hard sell and I don't see why anyone would come up with it except out of great need. I think that immediately after his death, Jesus' followers found themselves in a similar position to the Millerites after the Great Disappointment and like the Millerites, they immediately set about explaining to each other how they had never really been wrong after all. They found ways of getting around all of the contradictory evidence that was piling up and believed what they wanted to believe; that Jesus was the Messiah and that everything was going to according to plan actually. To me, that sounds like human nature.
I think religious believers make poor judges of the historical foundations of their religion. I'm sure there's a strong consensus among Mormon scholars of the historical foundations of Mormonism, such as the golden plates, the seer stone and so forth. Oh absolutely. Religiously inspired bias is clearly at play here. There's more at play than mere bias though, as the existence of non-Christian scholars who dismiss mythicism attests. This is what make people like Ehrman so valuable.
In my view if you subtract the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history there is little meaningful left. Sure. If you could get a clear look at the real Jesus I suspect he would seem rather an unremarkable figure in most ways. A well intentioned kook, ranting about an apocalypse that still hasn't come two millennia later.
Allow me to restate. So you believe Paul was unreliable about a resurrection but reliable about a religious movement. Yes. Is that so hard to believe? He was unreliable about events he witnessed only in a "vision". He was reliable about actual events from his own life. He was unreliable about supernatural things that never really happened and reliable about real actual events involving no fanciful elements. That seems sound to me. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Well maybe or maybe Jesus was a pure invention by a group of motivated rebels trying to create an uprising or simply looking for the main chance. I accept. That fits right well as a historical Jesus and founder of this sect.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
I doubt you're agreeing with the word "invention."
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Granny Magda in Message 291 writes: Bart Ehrman, an agnostic, accepts the historicity of Jesus, but he's not the only non-believing Biblical scholar. I wonder what the consensus among them is. The same. A historical Jesus, just a rather more modest one than many of their Christian colleagues. The same amongst Jewish scholars. I find that telling. These people have no skin in the game after all. No skin as believers, but plenty of skin as the main focus of their life's work.
But the comment from me was longer than what you quoted and wasn't about historicity. It was about the range of scholarly opinion that extends from the Jesus of miracles all the way to no Jesus at all. To reiterate, the number of professional scholars who take mythicism seriously can be counted on one hand - if you take a very generous definition of "scholar". That's what I was focusing away from. I wasn't just considering one of the extremes but rather the incredibly broad range of opinion between the two extremes. Most importantly, while there is a significant consensus around the Christ of faith at one extreme, there is also a significant consensus around the Jesus of history that's not all that far from other extreme. That's a chasm of a difference of opinion.
There is agreement on nothing but the baptism and the crucifixion, which is pretty slim pickings to hang a historicity hat on, and even those seem historically questionable to me. Both of those are good examples of problematic elements though, the Criterion of Embarrassment applies. John the Baptist anointing the actual Messiah makes little sense. That makes me more inclined to believe it might have happened. I see the baptism as almost self-evidently made up. When no one knew who Jesus was an association with John the Baptist was helpful to Christian evangelists. As the Jesus myth grew and Jesus became greater than John the Baptist it was too late to abandon the story and so it was revised to have Jesus reassure John that he should baptize him. The story about Elizabeth and Mary meeting while pregnant was probably added at the same time. Don't you love stories of private meetings from over a hundred years earlier that actually quote what was said? (Matthew 3:3-17, Luke 1:39-45)
And the crucifixion is especially problematic for early Christians (especially those who still considered themselves Jews). Crucifixion was a shameful death. The Romans intended it as the ultimate humiliation, not just death, but a horrifying and shameful death. Jews of the time would also have seen being nailed up as a shameful death, an outsider's death. This was not what anyone had expected from a Messiah. This would have been a hard sell and I don't see why anyone would come up with it except out of great need. I think that immediately after his death, Jesus' followers found themselves in a similar position to the Millerites after the Great Disappointment and like the Millerites, they immediately set about explaining to each other how they had never really been wrong after all. They found ways of getting around all of the contradictory evidence that was piling up and believed what they wanted to believe; that Jesus was the Messiah and that everything was going to according to plan actually. To me, that sounds like human nature. A very similar Christian argument is made about the resurrection where it must be true because otherwise Jesus's followers would have been despondent instead of triumphant after his death. I see the crucifixion as a means of glorifying Jesus. The resurrection story came first, and then to make the story even more amazing they gradually added, first theologically and then physically, the elaboration that even though Jesus died in the most shameful way he was resurrected nonetheless.
I think religious believers make poor judges of the historical foundations of their religion. I'm sure there's a strong consensus among Mormon scholars of the historical foundations of Mormonism, such as the golden plates, the seer stone and so forth. Oh absolutely. Religiously inspired bias is clearly at play here. There's more at play than mere bias though, as the existence of non-Christian scholars who dismiss mythicism attests. This is what make people like Ehrman so valuable. Take it to its logical conclusion. Mormon scholars believe the story of the golden plates just as deeply and sincerely as they do the crucifixion, yet they're wrong about the former and right about the latter. Biblical scholars believe the story of the virgin birth just as deeply and sincerely as they do the crucifixion, yet they're wrong about the former and right about the latter. Doesn't it make more sense that they're all wrong about everything, instead of picking and choosing which things they're right or wrong about? After all, there are no cross-confirming sources, only the single source whose individual parts often borrowed from one another.
In my view if you subtract the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history there is little meaningful left. Sure. If you could get a clear look at the real Jesus I suspect he would seem rather an unremarkable figure in most ways. A well intentioned kook, ranting about an apocalypse that still hasn't come two millennia later. I don't see how believing that the Jesus of history bore little to no resemblance to the Christ of faith is different in any truly meaningful way from believing there was never any Jesus.
Allow me to restate. So you believe Paul was unreliable about a resurrection but reliable about a religious movement. Yes. Is that so hard to believe? You tell me. The question reminds me of the Red Queen who could believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. Rhetorically asking "Is that so hard to believe?" is hardly a ringing endorsement of your position.
He was unreliable about events he witnessed only in a "vision". He was reliable about actual events from his own life. He was unreliable about supernatural things that never really happened and reliable about real actual events involving no fanciful elements. That seems sound to me. But the crucifixion was not an event from Paul's life. He was not a witness. But more critically, you're deciding whether an event actually happened by whether it was natural or supernatural. I agree the supernatural claims are false, but that still leaves you with no evidence for deciding which natural events actually occurred. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
No objection. The instantiation of the founders, the group, is their invented alter ego, Jesus.
We don't know who, what, where, this historical Jesus did, said or lived anything. You came up with two fine scenarios. I can speculate more. But, to no point. The historical Jesus was the one, imo, who provided the bread, dates and wine putting together the first preaching sessions. Call her Jesus.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Percy writes: Yes. Odd, isn't it? What type of kool-aid are these "believers" drinking?
I agree there's a scholarly consensus on his historicity, but I believe that's only because most Bible scholars are believers.AZ writes: OK, so now that the dust has settled, we can conclude the following: 1. The biblical Jesus is a non-starter. Didn’t happen. 2. A historical Jesus is a probability in that: a. Scholars think some of Paul’s letters are plausibly him. b. In the story of Saul that he wrote, there apparently was a job that involved taking Christians to Damascus for persecution. c. There were Christians, and there was a church at the time of Saul. d. Someone had to start it. Identified as the historical Jesus AZ vanquished #1 with but a thought. Killed the idea. Again, what on earth were those "believers" drinking?
Tangle writes:
Of course not, now that AZ Antitheist has eliminated #1 as a possibility.
You can't get from any of that to "probable." AZAntitheist writes: I give no abilities of any sort to this Jesus save to jawbone a small sect into existence. You have no "abilities" to give. As A Legend in your own mind, you can vanquish anything in your mind but have no power to vanquish beliefs outside of your mind.
Tangle writes: Exactly! AZ never will. He vanquished any probability. Stopped it dead in its tracks.
You can't get from any of that to "probable." AZ writes: All that believers have are the same stories. There are not as many suspicions among believers.
All we have are the stories, suspect apocryphal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Jesus is accepted as historical by the majority of experts in the field because the majority of experts in the field are Christians. There is still no historical evidence for Jesus. None.
There are respected scholars that do not believe in a historical Jesus. Until there is evidence if a historical Jesus that is where I stand. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
No, of course not. Nothing to question. But if you told me it was god running across the street I'd question. And that would be entirely reasonable. The plausible and mundane claims can be believable while the supernatural and impossible or even improbable claims can require more evidence.
I'm not saying you're wrong, Rahvin. The scenarios are quite plausible. Just missing evidence, that IMHO shoulda/coulda/whoulda have been there if correct. We believe mundane things with no evidence all the time....because they are so mundane that the threshold for belief is really that low. We do have evidence that many of the non-supernatural claims about a historical basis for Jesus were pretty mundane and ordinary.
Didn't the Romans record their executions? Wouldn't the governor's monthly status report to Caesar mention something as glorious and self-serving as offing another meddlesome rebel? Maybe everywhere but here? This assumes a lot though. The name of the person, which may not have been Jesus or Jeshua or Iesu or anything else recognizable. That the records would indicate circumstances we would recognize. I simply think it's easily believable that the mythical character "Jesus" was likely based on one or more actual people. That doesnt mean that all of the attributes came from a single individual, or even from any of the individuals used as the bases. That's the nature of myth. Imagine that a few thousand years from now, all of the American founding fathers and other revolutionary figures are combined into a mythic version of Washington. Maybe people forget the real name, and call him General Washing. General Washing signaled rebels that the British were coming. General Washing wrote the Declaration, but we dont have the original copy any more. Maybe more, entirely fictional events are added. Maybe people say his horse had wings. It would be easily plausible that the character was based on one or more real individuals and that some of the historically mundane events could have had basis in reality, even though the final product is almost unrecognizable.“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers “A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995... "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." Nihil supernum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
a. Yes, someone named Paul wrote some letters to groups of people. These letters make it clear that Paul knew nothing about the gospel stories. He knows nothing about an earthly Jesus. The Jesus he knows is a celestial being. He even states that all his knowledge of Jesus comes from revelation. He makes it clear none if his knowledge comes from other people.
b. That's according to Saul. There is nothing in the historical record about such a thing. c. We know nothing about these "churches". There were many mystery religions at the time. There are also celestial, heavenly Jesus figures in some Jewish sects. Again these churches seem to know nothing about the Jesus of the gospels. d. No. No one had to start it. Many religions have a mythical "starter" There is no contemporary, historical evidence for Jesus. None.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
We do have evidence that many of the non-supernatural claims about a historical basis for Jesus were pretty mundane and ordinary.
There is no evidence for a historical Jesus. Your Washington analogy is off because. The founding fathers did create something. In your scenario there are no records. We have Roman records. We have the works multiple writers and historians of the period and over the next 100 years. Nothing about a historical Jesus.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024