Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 9:58 AM
345 online now:
Aussie, dwise1, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Tanypteryx (9 members, 336 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,013 Year: 28,619/21,208 Month: 685/1,847 Week: 60/475 Day: 7/53 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3334
35
363738Next
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 511 of 560 (621124)
06-23-2011 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by Jon
06-23-2011 1:30 PM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
No thanks.

Like Crash I am waiting to hear that elusive evidnece for the existence of a historical Jesus. This documentary spells out reasons to doubt the hbistorical Jesus. You refuse to even consider the idea that a historical jesus never existed, so no sense talking to you about it.

Oh yeah you believe the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead?
In other words nothing like Jesus at all.

Is that correct?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Jon, posted 06-23-2011 1:30 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Jon, posted 06-23-2011 10:48 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 512 of 560 (621128)
06-23-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Theodoric
06-23-2011 10:01 PM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
This documentary spells out reasons to doubt the hbistorical Jesus.

Nothing that hasn't already been brought up in this thread. Only a small portion of the video is devoted to the issue of the historical Jesus; even less to Paul; even less to what Paul thought of Jesus.

There really isn't anything in that video to add to the discussion of an historical Jesus.

Oh yeah you believe the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead?

No; I don't. And I've said so countless times in this thread. Apparently my plain English hasn't been sufficient to get this point across, since you and Crash continue to present this caricature as though it were my actual position.

It's too bad.

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Theodoric, posted 06-23-2011 10:01 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 9:40 AM Jon has acknowledged this reply

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 513 of 560 (621169)
06-24-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by Jon
06-23-2011 10:48 PM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
here really isn't anything in that video to add to the discussion of an historical Jesus.

That's funny. The whole documentary shows reasons why Jesus is not a historical figure. Are you sure you watched the right documentary

No; I don't.

So what of these things fo you think accurately reflect the historical Jesus.

Named Jesus?
Did miracles?
Was king of the Jews?
Was crucified?
Rose from dead?

So far the only evidence you ahve presented is that you feel that a historical Jesus is a better expanation for Christianity. No evidence none. Instead you demand evidence that there was not a historical jesus.

So is your Jesus as historical a figure as Robin Hood and William Tell?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by Jon, posted 06-23-2011 10:48 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 10:15 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 514 of 560 (621173)
06-24-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 9:40 AM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
Named Jesus?

He is said to be named Jesus, given the transition between languages. Without having the Latin alphabet or sounds it would have been written and pronounced differently. The 'J' would have been closer to a 'Y' (or an 'I' as the Romans had it), and the 'us' ending is a European construction just like with Confucius. We actually have an idea what the original name was, since the authors tell us what it means in Aramaic, and we can translate Aramaic. This gives us 'Yeshua' or 'Yeshoshua', if we translate this into English without going through Greek and Latin first it is 'Joshua'.

Did miracles?

No. As with all historical figures - the miraculous and the supernatural are not considered historical. Regardless of the claims in our sources, we don't consider the Pharoahs to be actual deities.

Was king of the Jews?

You know that Jesus was not king of the Jews in the Bible?

Was crucified?

Generally this is accepted.

Rose from dead?

No historical character, regardless of the insistence of sources, is thought to have had supernatural powers.

Look at every single saint that church has canonized. All of them are said to have performed at least one or two miracles. While their personhood is considered historical in many cases, the miraculous claims are not considered historical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 9:40 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 11:51 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 527 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 5:00 PM Modulous has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 515 of 560 (621196)
06-24-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 514 by Modulous
06-24-2011 10:15 AM


Re: Does Paul actually support the existence of Jesus?
I usually respect your posts but evidently you have jumped in on a conversation you are not following closely.

You make strong points, but Jon is trying to have things both ways. Also, none of what you say is evidence for a historical jesus.

Lets look at the conversation

Jon writes:

Theodoric writes:

Oh yeah you believe the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead?

No; I don't. And I've said so countless times in this thread. Apparently my plain English hasn't been sufficient to get this point across, since you and Crash continue to present this caricature as though it were my actual position.

Since 'the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead?", isn't Jon's position then his position must entail at least one of those criteria. If his position does not entail any of those criteria then it is at least part of his position.

Again all Crash and I want is some evidence for a historical Jesus. That a historical Jesus is a very good explanation for the Jesus movement is not evidence.

Evidence for a historical Jesus please.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 10:15 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 12:15 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 516 of 560 (621199)
06-24-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 11:51 AM


Jesus and the technicolor evidence
Since 'the historical Jesus was some guy that wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead?", isn't Jon's position then his position must entail at least one of those criteria. If his position does not entail any of those criteria then it is at least part of his position.

Crucified and named Jesus, from reading his posts.

Again all Crash and I want is some evidence for a historical Jesus. That a historical Jesus is a very good explanation for the Jesus movement is not evidence.

Evidence for a historical Jesus please.

I cannot give you scientific evidence. I can only give you historical evidence. And that is in historical documents. Those documents have been presented as the sources for historical information. They are treated skeptically, but after historical analysis it is possible to infer some bits of information and then use local cultural knowledge and the like to build up a character called 'historical jesus'. Does the historical jesus really refer to a real person? Well, there's plenty of philosophy of history in that question but there is scant evidence for the existence of a lot of ancient figures but various arguments can be put forth to sway opinion one way or the other. Was Socrates real, or was he just used as a Platonic Ideal Teacher? Was Mohammed a real person, or was he an invention to shift attention from the real brains behind the operation?

So, no, there is no definitive evidence. There's the documents about Jesus, followed by a series of arguments about what those documents can tell us about what was going on back then.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 11:51 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 2:23 PM Modulous has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 517 of 560 (621218)
06-24-2011 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by Modulous
06-24-2011 12:15 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
I can only give you historical evidence.

No, there is no historical evidence. Historical evidence for the existence would be contemporary sources, original writings, multiple independent attestations from contemporaries.

There are assertions and anecdotes that are included in later histories, but those are not historical evidence.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 12:15 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 2:33 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 518 of 560 (621221)
06-24-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 2:23 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
No, there is no historical evidence. Historical evidence for the existence would be contemporary sources, original writings, multiple independent attestations from contemporaries.

That would be primary historical evidence. Secondary evidence, the kind that we have regarding Jesus, is still considered historical evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 2:23 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:38 PM Modulous has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 519 of 560 (621239)
06-24-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by Modulous
06-24-2011 2:33 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
Secondary evidence, the kind that we have regarding Jesus, is still considered historical evidence.

Wrong. It is not secondary historical evidence.
quote:
In scholarship, a secondary source[1][2] is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.

Source

I am quite familiar with historical terms and sources. The evidence is hearsay and anecdotal at best.

These are not a secondary source for the existence of Jesus. At best they are a primary source of anecdotal evidence for a historical Jesus. The evidence for Jesus is neither primary or secondary it is anecdotal.

These sources that supposedly provide evidence are of very questionable provenance. Even the supporters of the historicity of Jesus admit the provenance of many of their sources sucks. All of the New testament should be thrown out as evidence since the provenance of the source is so questionable.

The evidence is not historical it is anecdotal. There is a huge difference.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 2:33 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 3:46 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 520 of 560 (621241)
06-24-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 3:38 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
The evidence is not historical it is anecdotal. There is a huge difference.

In what way is it anecdotal that prohibits it from also being considered secondary source material?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:38 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:49 PM Modulous has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 521 of 560 (621242)
06-24-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Modulous
06-24-2011 3:46 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
A secondary source refers to a primary source. Without a primary source there is no secondary source.

Did you read the definition of a secondary source?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 3:46 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 3:54 PM Theodoric has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 522 of 560 (621243)
06-24-2011 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 3:49 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
A secondary source refers to a primary source. Without a primary source there is no secondary source.

Did you read the definition of a secondary source?

A secondary source relates information originally presented elsewhere. Are you saying that the Gospels are original compositions, not based on information that predates them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:49 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:59 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 528 by crashfrog, posted 06-24-2011 5:04 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.6


Message 523 of 560 (621246)
06-24-2011 3:59 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, not based on information that predates them?

We are talking about their classification as a source for a historical Jesus. They are a primary source for anecdotal evidence. Since we have no evidence that they are presenting history we can not take them as a primary source or secondary source of historical evidence. They certainly are not a secondary source of historical evidence as you claim.

Edited by Theodoric, : Last line rewrite


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Modulous, posted 06-24-2011 3:54 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Jon, posted 06-24-2011 4:44 PM Theodoric has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(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 responded

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

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 525 of 560 (621257)
06-24-2011 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Theodoric
06-24-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Jesus and the technicolor evidence
Since we have no evidence that they are presenting history

I guess we could say the same about information on Socrates or Pontius Pilate.

Jesus would not be the only figure from the past about whom we've nothing but written records.

That we have nothing but written accounts of someone from antiquity isn't reason to dogmatically assert that such a person didn't exist; at least, it isn't when it concerns anyone other than Jesus...

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 3:59 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by Theodoric, posted 06-24-2011 5:39 PM Jon has responded

RewPrev1
...
3334
35
363738Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017