Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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 179 of 560 (617204)
05-26-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by PaulK
05-26-2011 2:24 PM


Re: Execution records
Crash, your arguments are ignorant and irrational whether your conclusion happens to be correct or not.
I don't get the sense that you're examining my arguments, because your posts have nothing to do with them.
What's the evidence for the historic existence of Jesus? That's my only argument. Do you have any, or not? You've presented several examples of guys whose names are "Jesus". Well, fine - are any of them the historic Jesus?
The existence of the ornithologist James Bond - for whom there is much evidence he actually existed, unlike the figure worshiped by Christians - doesn't prove that "Moonraker" was a documentary. There's nothing irrational about saying that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 2:24 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 180 of 560 (617205)
05-26-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
05-26-2011 3:00 PM


Re: 'F' is for Fail... and for Frog
Crash, go and do some research on the concept of the Jewish Messiah. Understand what such a person was supposed to be and what they were supposed to do.
Why bother, since you and I both agree that no person alive or dead was the Jewish Messiah or did what they were supposed to do?
Jewish Messiahs are a red herring, since we've both agreed that the putative qualities of the Jewish Messiah weren't met by any person living or dead. So it's irrelevant.
Go and learn something about how historians perform their work: the criteria they use in evaluating claims, the sorts of things they try to explain, the system of valuation they use to rank explanations, etc.
Oh, I see. So your argument is that you can't present the evidence for the historic Jesus; I have to go talk to someone else, instead. Well, the quest continues.
You sure seem to fit the bill.
You've not once even attempted to grapple with my argument, and it's actually you who fits the bill I described in your thread. You're another person with the strange mental lacuna I described: you're insistent, adamant even, that there's all this evidence for the existence of the "historic Jesus", but you're not able to present even a single example of it.
Amazing. And you think I'm the fundamentalist.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 05-26-2011 3:00 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 182 of 560 (617210)
05-26-2011 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by PaulK
05-26-2011 3:32 PM


Re: Execution records
I guess you missed the actual quotes from your posts then.
No, I saw them. Why did you think those were part of an argument?
You DID try to argue that the proposed historical Jesus was too different from the Biblical Jesus because - among other things - he wasn't called "Jesus Christ".
But that's true, isn't it? Both you and Mod have made very compelling cases that, if the historic Jesus existed, he wasn't called "Jesus Christ", because, even though that's used as a name by Christians and by the Bible that's not actually a name. By the same token, the "real historic" Jesus Malverde certainly wasn't called Jesus Malverde because Malverde, too, is a title. (Also, there was no "real historic" Jesus Malverde.)
Well, ok. So you agree with me that, when we talk about the "historic Jesus Christ" we're not actually talking about a man named Jesus Christ. Even though we're all talking about the "historic Jesus" - see, it's even up there in the thread title - and not the "historic Joshua." Probably because there's also a guy named "Joshua" in the Bible. Did he and Historic Jesus share the same name? Just curious.
. You DID try to argue that the absence of an official record of the crucifixion was sufficient to conclude that it did not happen.
I did not at any time assert this. I'm just asking, what is the evidence that there was a "historic Jesus" who was crucified? The lack of any evidence is sufficient to conclude nothing but that there's a lack of evidence that there was a real Jesus who was crucified.
But "historic Jesus" proponents frequently try to turn the burden of proof around, and assert that because a lack of evidence might be consistent with a historic Jesus, it somehow disproves a mythical Jesus.
But that's not the case. A lack of evidence supports a mythical Jesus more than it supports a historic Jesus - it simply doesn't contradict a historic Jesus. It's a positive point for the mythical Jesus position but it has no effect at all on the case for the historic Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 3:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2011 3:55 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 4:03 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 221 by ramoss, posted 05-29-2011 12:47 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 183 of 560 (617211)
05-26-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by crashfrog
05-26-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Execution records
That said I always appreciate it when I attract the attention of the august PaulK. No, seriously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 05-26-2011 3:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 185 of 560 (617214)
05-26-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by PaulK
05-26-2011 4:03 PM


Re: Execution records
Oddly enough you haven't presented any other reason for your assertion that there was no crucifixion in your replies to my posts.
If there was no Jesus, then clearly Jesus could not have been crucified.
You obviously think that the entirely expected lack of Roman records is a problem.
There's not an "entirely expected" lack. There's just an explainable lack. There could have been records - there just aren't any.
The lack is more consistent with a mythical Jesus than a historical Jesus; parsimony says that when records are absent, it's more likely that they were never made than that they were made and then all were lost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 4:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 4:20 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 190 of 560 (617219)
05-26-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by PaulK
05-26-2011 4:20 PM


Re: Execution records
And since you don't have much of a case that there was no historical Jesus either
Well, but I do have a case for there being no historical Jesus - there doesn't seem to have been a historical Jesus.
The burden of proof, here, is on the historic Jesus position. I've already demonstrated how the mythical Jesus would be completely consistent with other observed instances of myth formation. But if "historical Jesus" is actually true, then it's a completely one of a kind event.
How many detailed records from Judaea, form that period do we have ?
As many as there are! It's not like there was some kind of purposeful purge of documents from Judea, such that we would predict, a priori, that the execution record of Jesus would be gone.
It just happens to be gone, if indeed it ever existed at all. And therefore the explanation that it never existed is more parsimonious than the explanation that it did at one time exist, but coincidentally was also lost. (But, somehow, the Crown of Thorns and the True Cross, half a tablet that says "INRI", somebody kept those, but nobody thought to hang on to Jesus's execution writ, or anything he actually wrote? Absurd.)
If the Romans did keep records, and we don't have them - and let me be absolutely clear I am not talking about records of Jesus, but of the records in general - it follows that the records are lost.
But it doesn't follow from that that Jesus's execution writ was among those lost. It's a non-sequitur to go from one to the other. We have just as many Roman records as we have, and any record at all of Jesus - his life, his times, his actions, something must have gone on the record at some point - are not among them.
That does contradict the "historic Jesus" hypothesis. It's like in a spy movie, when they run a background check and nothing suspicious comes up. But then they look a little closer and still nothing suspicious comes up - literally, nothing. No parking tickets or even any record he owned a car. No bad credit or any indication of any credit activity. Nothing.
It's usually at that point in the movie that they realize they've been had; they're looking at the background of a fictional person. For some reason, "historical Jesus" proponents never come to the same obvious realization. I guess it's too hard for some people to admit that they're being hoodwinked by the same religion they think they're too smart for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 4:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 5:07 PM crashfrog has replied

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


(1)
Message 192 of 560 (617221)
05-26-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by PaulK
05-26-2011 4:39 PM


Re: Execution records
You think that because Jesus is important NOW, the Romans would have taken special care of the records relating to him ?
Sure! They gambled for his clothes, didn't they? Don't we have the spear that pierced his side, the nails and the cross that killed him, the shroud he was buried in? Didn't they keep the cup he drank from at the Last Supper? I mean, if we're talking legends and stories at face-value, now, you have to believe that all that happened, too.
So why didn't someone keep his writings? The writings about him? Recall how quickly the early church spread - in the space of a handful of years people were obsessed with this Jesus guy, even unto martyrdom.
Nobody thought to hang on to any records, but they sold his underwear? Really? In the greatest paper bureaucracy of the age?
Absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 4:39 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 193 of 560 (617222)
05-26-2011 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by PaulK
05-26-2011 4:49 PM


Re: Execution records
Has anyone asked for official records of L Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith's lives to prove that they existed ?
No, because there's already a record that L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith existed. There's reams of evidence such that you would have to be an imbecile to deny it. Hubbard was frequently photographed and we have hundreds of his writings, both professional and personal. Smith sat for dozens of paintings and we have his own writings, too.
It's generally accepted that the early Christian relied on oral accounts because there was no need to write it all down - the end was coming real soon now.
Nonsense - there's too many early church writings for that have been the case. That's a clearly absurd and self-serving post-hoc rationalization about early Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 4:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 5:16 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 196 of 560 (617227)
05-26-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by PaulK
05-26-2011 5:07 PM


Re: Execution records
Seems to me that there were plenty of Jewish cult leaders
That started incredibly popular new religions, but about whom nothing could be historically established?
No, the ratio of certainty-of-existence to evidence-for-existence going on here is completely unprecedented.
Oh come on, you know that most "relics" are fakes.
So, the relics are fakes but Jesus can't be a fake?
That's what I really don't get at all. We're reasonable people, so we agree that 99.99% of the mythology surrounding Jesus is utter bullshit with no truth to it at all. And now I go slightly further and say that an additional characteristic of the Jesus mythology - his existence - is bunk as well, and now you're drawing the line and saying "woah, that's a step too far."
Really? The hucksters who fabricated a cross and fabricated a crown of thorns and fabricated a spear and fabricated a shroud - they couldn't have fabricated a savior, too?
We don't have the records of the 6 AD Census, carried out when the Romans annexed Judaea. Are you suggesting that the Romans went to all that bother of doing a census - for tax purposes and didn't make records ? Absurd ! But we don't have them so they must have been lost.
Sure. But we know they existed.
We don't know that about the execution writ of Jesus - we know only that we don't have it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 5:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 5:50 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 197 of 560 (617228)
05-26-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by PaulK
05-26-2011 5:16 PM


Re: Execution records
But who goes into that before concluding that they existed, at least provisionally ?
Are you asking me who has seen a picture of L. Ron Hubbard? Probably everybody who went looking for one; it's on Wikipedia.
But, I know what you mean. In almost every case, it's likely that the people who initially believe in the existence of L. Ron Hubbard and Joe Smith do so because everyone around them believes it, and therefore it just seems so reasonable.
Like it seemed so reasonable, once, for me to believe in the existence of the historic Jesus. All the reasonable people I knew believed in it. The fact that you believe it, PaulK, was once very convincing to me, I don't know if you'll believe that, but it's true.
Belief on the basis that reasonable people around me probably knew that they were talking about isn't unreasonable, but it's clearly not consistent with my desire to believe only things I know to be true, so at one point I decided to get into the evidence that must have convinced all you reasonable people, and imagine my surprise: not only wasn't there any, but people got super pissed-off (like Jon) when you tried to ask them for it.
Imagine my surprise! Everybody believed in the existence of Jesus based entirely on the same basis I did: all the reasonable people around them believed in it, too. All the way back it's "well, everybody else seems to think Jesus existed, so I guess it's true." All the way back to Tacitus! All the way back to Josephus! All the way back to the early Christian church!
All the way back it's all peer signalling. All the way! What an amazing con job the human race seems to have pulled on itself. Somehow, it's turtles all the way down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 5:16 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 5:57 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 201 of 560 (617240)
05-26-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by PaulK
05-26-2011 5:50 PM


Re: Execution records
Under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea, a backwater part of the Roman Empire.
Here you go, begging the question again. What evidence is there that there ever was a Christianity "under Jesus"? Maybe the reason that Christianity doesn't make much of a splash until Paul is because it didn't exist until Paul? Not that Paul invented it, per se, but that somebody did and then Paul heard about it.
As I've said there is damn little for Socrates, and I'm certain of Socrates existence.
We have an abundance of primary sources about Socrates, including reports by people who were at his trial, and his frequent mention in the writings of his students and other people who met him. We have busts of Socrates sculpted from life. Of course, much of what we know about Socrates could be Plato's invention but there's enough contemporary sources from people who directly knew him that there's just no question about it.
Compare that with the Jesus record, which is absolutely nothing at all. It's funny - I keep asking for evidence for the "historic Jesus" position and I get the "historic Socrates" position, the "historic Caesar" position, the "historic Buddha" position, and so on. I guess it's just easier for people to prove the existence of people who actually existed. It puts me in mind of that old joke about the guy who loses a contact behind the bar, but goes out to look for it in the street because that's where the light is better.
Your argument relied on there being genuine relics
My argument has nothing to do with the existence of genuine relics. How could the existence of genuine relics support the nonexistence of Jesus? You're just being absurd.
Your argument that if we don't have them, then they didn't exist is wrong.
No, it's not, because we know the census records existed and now we know they don't.
We don't know that about the Jesus execution record, thus, it's a totally different situation and the most reasonable, most parsimonious conclusion is that it never existed. It makes quite a bit of difference if we're talking about records that existed and now don't, versus records that never existed at all. This is such an elementary and basic point that I wonder how someone with your tremendous intellect could fail to grasp it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 1:25 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 202 of 560 (617242)
05-26-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by PaulK
05-26-2011 5:57 PM


Re: Execution records
Now if you paid attention you'd know that my position is that there probably was a person on whom the Gospel stories are based.
Well, could be! There is, of course, no evidence for this view at all.
But even if that were true, how would that be the "historic Jesus"? Does the existence of Hoagy Carmichael prove that there was a "historic James Bond"?
That's the point. Nobody was asking for proof. Nobody expected it to be needed.
Indeed. And that's why the "mythical Jesus" position is so reasonable - the environment was perfect for the injection of a completely mythical savior, just as it was for John Frum and Jesus Malverde. Or do you insist that there was a real "historical John Frum"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2011 5:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 1:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 208 of 560 (617318)
05-27-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
05-27-2011 1:25 AM


Re: Execution records
Of course it isn't really begging the question (so that's ANOTHER bad argument) for the simple reason that I am not arguing that Jesus existed, and in fact my arguments are agnostic on the issue.
No, they're clearly not. You can't be "agnostic about the issue" and then use the assumed existence of Jesus to conclude, as you did, that
quote:
Under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea, a backwater part of the Roman Empire.
Again, that's begging the question - it's whether or not there ever was a Christianity under Jesus that's precisely under contention! You can't assume the existence of Jesus and then use that as evidence of the existence of Jesus. Your contention here is perfectly circular.
It is your claim that, assuming Jesus existed, Christianity MUST have been really, really important in his lifetime.
No, that's not my claim. How did you get it so wrong? I'm the one who's arguing that Jesus didn't exist, so why would I assume he did? Did you complete forget the two days of discussion we've just had on this issue?
Are you really setting up the false dichotomy that the Gospels must be either almost completely accurate or total fiction ?
Are you saying that the existence of an American ornithologist proves that Casino Royale is a documentary?
Obviously you were asserting that at least some of the relics were genuine (if Jesus existed) because how else could their survival possibly be evidence that the records would have survived too.
I've not asserted that any relic is genuine, because they're all fake. You agree they're all fake. Everybody knows they're fake.
What on Earth are you on about? Every post it's like you forget what I've been trying to argue.
So what is the difference between the census records and the crucifixion records ?
I just told you what the difference is - we know the census records existed, we don't know that any execution records of Jesus existed. How many times do I have to repeat that? Please let me know so I can just repeat it that many times in a post, and be done with it.
But I'm not talking about any specific crucifixion record.
But I am. Did you forget that we're in a thread talking about Jesus? Only the execution record of Jesus (and maybe the two thieves, maybe) has any relevance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 1:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 4:40 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 209 of 560 (617319)
05-27-2011 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by PaulK
05-27-2011 12:57 PM


Re: What are we trying to show here?
Now I happen to think that the existence of the Gospels presents a prima facie case for a historical Jesus
Does the existence of Jesus Malverde busts available in any Mexican convenience store present a prima facie case for the existence of Jesus Malverde? How about the existence of three major motion pictures about his exploits? Are those a "prima facie" case as well?
Do the existence of south seas cargo cults present a "prima facie" case for the existence of John Frum? Why or why not?
Does the existence of last year's "Quantum of Solace" present a "prima facie" case for the existence of James Bond? Why or why not?
Does the existence of "The Lord of the Rings" present a "prima facie" case for the existence of hobbits? Why or why not?
I don't see how the Gospels present a prima facie case of anything. Could you elaborate?
Is there anyone else treated as fictional solely because the records of them aren't very good ?
Yes! Jesus Malverde, John Frum, to name two examples solely from the twentieth century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 12:57 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 4:48 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 222 of 560 (617597)
05-29-2011 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by PaulK
05-27-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Execution records
deal with the point that Christianity seems to have been an obscure Jewish cult of little interest to many people, until well after Jesus is supposed to have lived.
I have dealt with it. The most reasonable explanation for that phenomenon is that Christianity is the result of people passing around stories about a mythical Jesus. That's why Christianity doesn't seem to exist at the time that Jesus is supposed to have started Christianity - it didn't get started by Jesus, because he didn't exist to start it.
That's the most parsimonious conclusion.
I wasn't arguing that Jesus existed, so your objection is in error - again.
So then there's no basis at all for your statement "Under Jesus Christianity seems to have been no more than a minor Jewish cult, restricted to Judaea, a backwater part of the Roman Empire." As you now agree there's actually no evidence at all that there was a Christianity under Jesus that was "little more than a minor Jewish cult".
I stated that you were arguing that IF Jesus existed Christianity must have been very important in his lifetime
Then you stated something that was in error, because I've not argued that. I've argued that there was no Jesus, so there was no Christianity in his lifetime, thus there was nothing to be "little more than a Jewish cult restricted to Judaea", and therefore that's just one more thing you're asserting on the basis of no evidence. Which is the underlying basis of the "historical Jesus" position - nothing at all.
How is the existence of fake relics evidence that we should have official records of Jesus, if he existed ?
Because reals are better than fakes! (Ask anybody at a biker bar.) The real Jesus would have owned things, produced things - he was a carpenter - written things. Which people would have wanted to keep. Because they did want those things so badly that even though he never existed to produce anything, people made up relics to pass around and meet that need.
But imagine the care they would have taken of his real relics!
So you STiLL don't understand that unless a significant proportion of crucifixion records survived, then the absence of the record for Jesus is NOT evidence either way ?
But we're concerned only with the execution of Jesus, not of anybody else. And unless you're proposing some kind of execution-specific purge of Roman records - again, not terribly parsimonious - then the lack of execution records in general has nothing to do with the lack of execution records of Jesus. It's completely irrelevant - it's just a coincidence. And it provides absolutely no explanation for the lack of Jesus's execution records.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2011 4:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2011 3:33 AM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024