|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, I'm saying that for the purposes of working out what the historical Jesus was like or if there was a historical Jesus it doesn't matter whether Horus or Mithras were based on real people
quote: For the purposes of this discussion I don't think that we need to go into that.
quote: From what I've heard the claim that the similarities predate Christianity is dodgy for a start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Sure it does. The more independent sources existed, the more likely that there was a historical Jesus.
quote: You are at least required to show that you ARE making the more parsimonious claim, So far, you haven't come close to doing that.
quote: As it happens you haven't presented any evidence of significance.
quote: The argument, as I have heard it is that Tacitus would have had access to official records (which appears to be true) and could have dug out the record of Jesus' crucifixion. Another is that there would have been an official investigation of Christianity, which Tacitus would have had access to. As I say, I don't believe it, but I can't disprove it.
quote: Except for the fact that the text does not support your interpretation.
quote: No, I haven't admitted any such thing. I've said that one of the two possible references is at least partly Christian, but not that any part of it is a deliberate forgery.
quote: So your reason for expecting this evidence, given that Jesus existed is...that you expect this evidence if Jesus existed. That's not much of an argument.
quote: As you know perfectly well we have an idea of the historical Jesus that would meet your criteria. All we need to work out is whether it is likely that such a person existed.
quote: Simply for completeness I am eliminating things that you might consider "extraordinary" in your argument.
quote: It makes perfect sense. You're the one taking the position that the Gospels MUST be complete fiction. I take the tentative position that the Gospels are based on a real person, who admittedly did no real miracles (but may have faked some, like a modern faith healer), did not come back from the dead - and who probably wasn't of Davidic descent or born in Bethlehem either to name two more differences. Te question is whether the story was merely exaggerated and embellished (admittedly to quite a great degree) or whether it was replaced by a complete fiction and lost as you claim. Since it is almost inevitable that exaggeration and embellishment would occur, and it seems unlikely that the original story would be completely lost, it seems that the burden is on you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: This topic is about the historical Jesus. If there wasn't one that's all that need be said.
quote: It's the dating that is the problem. Roman Mithraism - which is what you are talking about - shows up relatively late in the 1st Century. If you can't show that the Mithraists had the idea first, the question of who copied who (if there was any copying) is still open.
quote: I presume you mean for the Roman Mithras cult over the Christianity of the same era. Mithras was never a real person.
quote: I don't want to discuss it in this thread, because it would be off-topic.
quote: Only if that historical character is close enough to Jesus to count. Horus certainly doesn't, and Roman Mithraism seems to be VERY loosely based on older Mithras worship, so the original of Mithras would likewise be way too old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Well it would be if you were right. But you're wrong. So it isn't over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Only if it is relevant to the topic. And if you can actually bring anything to the subject instead of wasting time with posts like the last couple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Of course we can, to the degree that we can identify their influence and reconstruct them. What we can't do is use the fact that we don't have these sources NOW to support a claim that they never existed, no matter what the evidence.
quote: Here's a hint Crash, when you accuse people who come to conclusions you don't like of being dishonest - just BECAUSE they come to conclusions you don't like - it's pretty obvious that you're acting like the nastier sort of apologist.
quote: Of course the entities in question are ASSUMPTIONS, not people. And you need an equally full explanation to make a valid comparison and you don't. For instance we don't NEED to assume that other people exist at all. Solipsism is very parsimonious by your standard. And if there's no real need to explain why we see other people then solipsism wins. So your version of parsimony simply doesn't work.
quote: Since I don't claim that Tacitus consulted any official records (did you fail to notice that I explicitly stated that I didn't believe that he did ?) and I don't claim that the records didn't exist when Tacitus was writing - only that they don't exist NOW that isn't exactly a valid objection. (I do suspect that the detailed records would have stayed in Jerusalem and been destroyed earlier, but that's not much more than my personal opinion).
quote: Because they exist and they are relevant. If you want to insist that there are no extra-Biblical references to Jesus then you are wrong. If you want to insist that there is no need to discuss Tacitus because Tacitus must have relied on Christian sources you need to deal with the arguments to the contrary. This is how you make a case, by dealing with the objections, not just by ignoring them.
quote: No, you need to read it again. There's nothing that implies that Tacitus did not personally believe that Jesus existed.
quote: Not when it's an accident, as it may be. And even then there may be a genuine reference to Jesus there.
quote: Plenty of people lived and died without leaving any records that survived to the present day. So you still need to make a case which is more than opinion.
quote: The Gospels and Paul's epistles are such evidence. Where's the evidence that there was no such person ?
quote: You claimed that there was something extraordinary about the origins of Christianity if Jesus existed but you were very unclear about what it was. Thus I had to eliminate things that you MIGHT have meant.
quote: It seems pretty obvious. The first Christians tell (mostly true) stories about their dead leader. As these leaders start to die, their followers come to the realisation that maybe the world isn't going to end very soon and maybe it would be a good idea to write things down before it's too late and do so (Mark is supposedly based on Peter's teachings). The author of Luke even claims to have done considerable research on the matter. And so we get the Gospels. And later on, more Gospels, too.
quote: Obviously the real story would be how Christianity ACTUALLY began. Unless you want to argue that Christianity didn't have an origin your question makes no sense to me.
quote: Because that would be stupid. If you have exaggerated and embellished to glorify an individual the last thing you do is replace him with an imaginary creation. A lot of the exaggeration and embellishment wouldn't even be conscious falsehoods, just the usual failures of memory. So there is no real continuity here. You can't use the existence of exaggeration and embellishment to argue for the complete falsehood of the Gospels.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Someone founded Christianity.
From your posts I gather that this person should meet the following criteria: 1. It must less extraordinary that they, rather than a historical Jesus, would found Christianity. 2. It must be more parsimonious to conclude that they founded Christianity 3. They must be better documented than Jesus, including independent non-Christian sources. So, who is it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Since you won't support or even explain your assertion other that stating that there are similarities which somehow undermine the idea of a historical Jesus there's nothing for me to discuss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
If Crashfrog claims to have a better explanation for Christianity than a historical Jesus, then the burden of proof is certainly on him to show that he does. And that certainly includes showing that his explanation is less vulnerable to his own arguments. If it were not then his arguments are irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And the reason that I asked is that Crashfrog's own arguments seem to require him to propose some known figure.
quote: Obviously it is NOT "exactly the same". For instance Crashfrog is the one proposing a vague hand-wavy idea, while arguing against a plausible naturalistic explanation. And the criteria I am asking Crashfrog to meet come directly from his own arguments against my position. If they cannot reasonably be applied to his alternative, it is for him to explain why.
quote: Actually he hasn't explained adequately even given his own misunderstanding of parsimony. He has to explain why his explanation assumes fewer people than a historical Jesus - and he hasn't done that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Obviously you missed the part of the discussion where Crashfrog was using "it was made up" as his sole explanation for everything. It has got a bit further but only because of the work of Crashfrog's opponents.
quote: You are assuming here that all plausible naturalistic explanations are equal, aside from parsimony. This is not true. I've already explained why you are wrong about parsimony, and you are clearly object to my even asking Crashfrog to show that he has a better explanation on his own terms. Rather odd that, if your position really were rational.
quote: Now you are being dishonest. The only reason for asking for the name is because Crashfrog's arguments imply that the founder of Christianity ought to be a known historical figure. And of course, we have the Gospels, Paul and the possible references in Josephus for evidence.
quote: Of course I am NOT asking for that at all. I am asking for an alternative explanation, not a disproof. It seems clear that you do not have an explanation which involves a known historical figure, which in itself calls into question your claim to be more parsimonious, even on it's own terms. It is also clear that you have no reasonable explanation of why Crashfrog's arguments would not work equally well against any alternative explanation that you might bring up. So why poke your oar in instead of leaving it to Crashfrog ? Do you believe that he doesn't have an answer either ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Of course, inventing the story is not quite the same as founding Christianity. But if you can come up with a plausible explanation which doesn't include a founder who knows what he is doing, then please produce it. And the evidence.
quote: Of course that is just a vague generalisation. Being a bit more specific, Muhammad, Buddha and Joseph Smith all existed - as well as others. Fictional founders seem to be something of an exception.
quote: If we are going to compare like with like, what aspect of "being Jesus" is not known to exist. Jews exist. Cult leaders exist. The Romans crucified people. We can go on. Is your claim to parsimony based on anything more than the vagueness of your explanation ?
quote: But I am not asking for anyone that specific, just a documented historical figure who plausibly founded Christianity (and by that I would mean the leader rather than someone who was merely an inventor of stories). Or at least an explanation which explains WHY we should expect documentation for Jesus, but not for your alternative leader.
quote: The only thing that seems to be "extraordinary" about it is that it is more specific than your vague proposal. There is nothing extraordinary ABOUT the historical Jesus, apart from being the first leader of a religion that happened to become very important (and that more to do with people like Paul and Constantine than him). And the same would apply to ANY proposed founder of Christianity. So again, all you have is vagueness, but vagueness is not a strength in an explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: The evidence, in brief is the material shared between Matthew and Luke, that is NOT shared with Mark. In addition it is argued that the differences between Matthew and Luke are evidence that Luke did not copy Matthew (or vice versa). Thus, the argument is that there was a shared source which can be reconstructed from the shared material. Naturally it is not derived from the Gospels because two Gospels are derived from it. This pushes back the origin of the Jesus story, yet again, which adds credibility to it.
quote: But your reason is nothing more than a fabrication. A pure invention on your part.
quote: But I am not getting ahead of myself. You made the accusations, clearly without knowing what you are talking about. Indulging in preemptive slanders is hardly an honest tactic, not one that I need hesitate in criticising.
quote: On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. If you simply object to assuming the existence of people without need - and feel free invent ad hoc "explanations" to avoid really explaining observations - then there is nothing to stop you sliding into solipsism.
quote: Because it isn't KNOWN to be wrong, and because a fair assessment does not ignore inconvenient evidence.
quote: It is ? The claim was:
Because there no other source besides the bible to be found about this jezus character, that's why.
And before you argue that you didn't say that, I never claimed that you did.
quote: There's nothing in the text to suggest that, just your assumption that Tacitus cannot have believed that Jesus was a historical character. So you really are making a circular argument here.
quote: If you had been paying attention instead of jumping to the conclusion of "forgery!" you might have noticed that I suggested that marginal notes might have accidentally been incorporated into the main text.
quote: Actually it doesn't make much difference. You still need to provide reasons why we should expect more of a record than we have.
quote: But i've argued that he was a cult leader, and a wanna-be Messiah. Not that important to people at large, but very important to his followers.
quote: Obviously the people who first joined the religion would know how it started ! They did it ! So how did that get forgotten ?
quote: Of course, I haven't told a single lie in this thread.
quote: It hardly seems proven, it's easy enough to write hagiographies. And there are occasional signs of Jesus' "feet of clay" in the Gospels if you bother to look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That's just starting a story, not starting a religion. And it is not even as plausible as my version of how the story got started, which at least provides reasons for why they came up with that story. (And don't forget that Christianity STARTED in Judaea).
quote: On the contrary, I am just asking you to give some evidence that it happened that way. I am not asking for the evidence you claim at all.
quote: Then by all means provide evidence.
quote: The historical Jesus of course, since that is the one we are discussing.
quote: Even if that were true, there would have been de facto leaders. But OK, as a concession, I will accept clear references to Christianity as a movement. Are there any for the period prior to Paul's conversion outside of the Bible ?
quote: No doubt at all ? That seems to more accurately describe you. But thank you for confirming that the advantage you are claiming is vagueness and lack of detail. Just as an aside, one of my criticisms of Intelligent design, it is that in one respect it is even less scientific than Creation "Science". Creation "Science" at least puts forward proposals about what happened and if they are shown to be untrue at least they were falsifiable proposals. ID generally refrains from putting forward concrete proposals at all, and when it does they are largely ignored even by ID supporters. ID supporters also believe in the virtue of vagueness, while scientists prefer concrete proposals.
quote: Yet another of your slanders.
quote: Except, apparently for the conclusion that Jesus was mythical. Odd that the one thing you insist on, is held to be true largely because it is vaguer than the alternative. So do you have a real, rational argument beyond vagueness and slandering anyone who dares to disagree with you ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Oh I'm sorry. "Jesus didn't exist" is your "explanation". Message 161 quote: You are going to have to explain why the actual founder and/or leader (whoever they were) can remain unknown to history while a historical Jesus must be known outside of the Bible.
quote: Please provide your concrete mythical Jesus hypothesis and show that it is more parsimonious that the historical Jesus hypothesis.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024