Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
38 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,607 Year: 16,643/19,786 Month: 768/2,598 Week: 14/251 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 293 of 560 (620478)
06-17-2011 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by PaulK
06-17-2011 1:39 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

You're going to have to offer more explanation than that.


You're going to have to offer more explanation of why more explanation than that is required.
It exactly meets the 'challenge' set by Jon.

PaulK writes:

You still need an explanation for why those stories were made up,


This seems a strange question.

Why were the Harry Potter stories made up?
Why were the Bilbo Baggins stories made up?
Why were the Jesus stories made up?

It seems less parsimonious that the answer to the first two (and many more like them) is: "Because people like fantastical stories.", but the answer to the last one has to be "Because a Jesus existed.".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2011 1:39 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2011 8:22 AM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 295 of 560 (620483)
06-17-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by PaulK
06-17-2011 8:22 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

The challenge was to provide explanations. For instance John would describe the change in the view of the Messiah to be a reaction to Jesus' failure and death. How is it explained by "Jesus was made up" ?


Well, the initial view of a messiah was made up and the subsequent view of a messiah was made up.
This is similar to the initial view of Gollum as being a simple 'monster' that attacks Bilbo in The Hobbit, but who then develops into a more complex sympathetic character in LoTR.

PaulK writes:

If you do not consider the relevant history or the usage of the writings your view might have merit. Unfortunately, ignoring these things is not rational. As Jon has pointed out there are features of the Gospels that seem inconvenient to the authors, or to go against views they would be expected to have. These features need to be explained.


There is no relevant history of a Jesus, except in the bible. To include that circular argument is not rational.

And you need an explanation of why the stories are not well written? Perhaps because there were many people making up different bits.
This can often be seen in spin-off books from TV series. Authors have their own 'agenda' and will twist existing background stories to suit their wishes.

PaulK writes:

We need an explanation for the origin of Christianity, too. Why is it more parsimonious to assume some unknown origin than to accept that there is some basis to the claims of Early Christians ?


I am not suggesting that the origin is unknown. I am suggesting that people made it all up.
There is no evidence for the claims of early christians in relation to a Jesus, But there is plenty of evidence of people making stuff up.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2011 8:22 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2011 9:16 AM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 298 of 560 (620490)
06-17-2011 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by PaulK
06-17-2011 9:16 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

Of course, you just made that up... Or in other words just asserting that something was made up without understanding what happened is more a cheap excuse than a good explanation.

Yes, I made up an explanation - based on the massive amounts of evidence that we have the people make up fantastical stories.
This is compared to the zero non-biblical evidence we have for a historical Jesus.

PaulK writes:

I said nothing about the quality of the writing. I am more interested in aspects of the story that appear to go against the agenda of the Gospel authors. For instance - to reuse a point made earlier - the Gospel authors are not happy to let the Romans take the blame for Jesus' execution. Why would they make that up ? Or are you proposing that the story predates Mark ?

My last post answered these questions: Badly made up stories are made up badly.

PaulK writes:

Panda writes:

I am not suggesting that the origin is unknown. I am suggesting that people made it all up.

But apparently you don't know who or when or why.
Did your parents conceive you? Do you know where or when or how or why? No? Then clearly you were not conceived.

PaulK writes:

Or how the Gospels came to be accepted as fact.

And the reason they became accepted as fact is because people are frequently ignorant, superstitious and irrational.
Lots of people believe (as fact) that you will get 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror. That doesn't make it even slightly true.
But this is off-topic, I expect.

PaulK writes:

There is plenty of evidence that not all documents are made up, too. Perhaps you would like to explain why we should assume "made up" as a default.

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
'Made up by people' is the simple, common, parsimonious choice.
Even non-biblical documents have to be validated.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2011 9:16 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Jon, posted 06-17-2011 10:48 AM Panda has responded
 Message 326 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2011 2:06 PM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 303 of 560 (620499)
06-17-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Jon
06-17-2011 10:48 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
Jon writes:

What is so extraordinary, then, about supposing there was a 'Messiah' who ended his live executed by the Romans?


I see that you want to equivocate over the word 'Messiah'.
You are a dull one-trick pony.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Jon, posted 06-17-2011 10:48 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Jon, posted 06-17-2011 10:59 AM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 306 of 560 (620504)
06-17-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Jon
06-17-2011 10:58 AM


Re: Roman Blame
Jon writes:

So, the question becomes: If the whole story was just made up, and the Roman involvement in Jesus' death is clearly not a favorable point to the story tellers, why on Earth mention the Romans at all?


The people that made up the first version didn't like the Romans.
The people that re-wrote those parts liked the story but didn't want to offend the Romans as much.

"why on Earth mention the Romans at all?"
And why on Earth mention the Americans at all in a European thriller?

Perhaps it was because the Romans were a world-power that had an effect on everyone's lives.
It's always exciting to have a 'baddie'. Sometimes you need to tone down the 'badness' for the children though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Jon, posted 06-17-2011 10:58 AM Jon has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 307 of 560 (620505)
06-17-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Jon
06-17-2011 10:59 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
Jon writes:

Panda writes:

I see that you want to equivocate over the word 'Messiah'.

Too funny. Mind showing where I equivocated?

Too funny. Minding showing where I said you equivocated?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Jon, posted 06-17-2011 10:59 AM Jon has acknowledged this reply

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 316 of 560 (620522)
06-17-2011 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Jon
06-17-2011 12:09 PM


Re: Lots of dead messiahs?
Jon writes:

Even excluding Jesus from the list, we still see that there is a reasonable number of 'Messiahs'


The predicted equivocation has arrived.

When asked for information about messiahs, Jon posts a list of messiah claimants.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Jon, posted 06-17-2011 12:09 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Jon, posted 06-17-2011 1:37 PM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 331 of 560 (620552)
06-17-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Jon
06-17-2011 1:37 PM


Re: Lots of dead messiahs?
Jon writes:

There's a reason I put 'Messiah' in quotes: to recognize the very fact that despite the claims made, the people in question were not actual Messiahs.


Let the equivocation begin!!

Jon writes:

But then again, that is obvious to anyone who isn't being a troll.


I hope you thanked the person that explained it to you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Jon, posted 06-17-2011 1:37 PM Jon has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 332 of 560 (620555)
06-17-2011 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by PaulK
06-17-2011 2:06 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

Obviously then, the evidence that people also write historical accounts, and stories which are elaborated historical accounts is evidence against your hypothesis, then. Perhaps you would like to explain why you did not take this into account.


Those historical accounts also need to be verified, or they are given the weight they deserve of "might be true - might not be true".
Those documents which have fantastical elements are considered to be fiction.
Historians do not believe that the Homer's odyssey is an accurate historical document.

Perhaps you would like to explain why other historical documents need to prove their veracity but the bible is exempt?

PaulK writes:

In other words you have to assume that they made up things contrary to their own agendas. WHich goes against what you said earlier.


I don't know what their agendas were.
Do you?

PaulK writes:

I am not using lack of evidence against your hypothesis (although you have nothing much) I am pointing out that you haven't got much of an explanation. This is why the hypothesis that there was a historical Jesus is better than your hypothesis - it really explains more evidence (as opposed to proposing ad hoc explanations)


Please show me what is not explained by "It was made up".
All you seem to have so far is that you can't believe that people would make up a religion. But I am fairly sure that you don't believe that all religions are true - therefore some of them must be made up.

Paulk writes:

But the Gospels would be competing with the real story of how Christianity arose. What happened to that story ? Have you any evidence for your explanation of that ?


What story is that?

Paulk writes:

But there are no extraordinary claims being made here. That an ancient document should be based on true history is not extraordinary at all.


But when that document starts ascribing to supernatural events, it is making extraordinary claims.
We don't read about George and The Dragon and then conclude that dragons existed. We don't even conclude that George existed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2011 2:06 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 347 of 560 (620599)
06-18-2011 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Jazzns
06-17-2011 1:09 PM


Re: Lots of dead messiahs?
Jazzns writes:

Most of the others weren't executed in the same sense as Jesus. They led rebellions that were certain to give the Romans a reason to care. Those are in no way like Jesus and refer more to what the Jews considered a real messiah to be, someone who would liberate them.


Most of the others also weren't alive when jesus is meant to have lived, so Jon's use of the word 'common' is unfounded.
(His list only had 60 messiah claimants over ~2000 years. Considering how many people have lived and died in the past 2000 years - 60 seems like an infrequent occurance.)

So, when Jon claims:
"'Messiahs' were common; almost all of them ended their lives executed by the Romans."
he doesn't have any evidence that there were messiahs or that messiahs were common or that messiahs were mostly executed by Romans.

Your very simple question: "where did you get this information?" was answered with a lie. The correct answer is: "Jon made it up."

Why would someone just make up a lie to cover their lack of knowledge..........
*cough*religion*cough*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Jazzns, posted 06-17-2011 1:09 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 359 of 560 (620632)
06-18-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by PaulK
06-18-2011 6:09 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

So, who did make up the story, and how do you know that they didn't have a real person to hang their fictions on ?


This could be an endless list of 'turtles all the way down'.

Since the jesus myth seems to be based on the horus myth and/or the mithra myth, I doubt we will ever be able to answer that question.
If there is a real person that those myths are based on, then he was around a long time before jesus was meant to be alive.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2011 6:09 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 4:19 AM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 368 of 560 (620649)
06-19-2011 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by PaulK
06-19-2011 4:19 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

Panda writes:

This could be an endless list of 'turtles all the way down'.

But it isn't because we are only interested in Jesus, for the purposes of this discussion.

So, you want to ignore the origins of the jesus myth because we are only interested in jesus?
If you want to know who (if anyone) the jesus character was based on then you must include the characters that the jesus character was based on.
Or are you just saying that you are happy to stop at mithra because that is far enough back to show that there was no historical jesus?

PaulK writes:

My understanding is that those claims are extremely dubious.


What claims regarding mithra are dubious?
The striking similarities seem to be fairly well accepted.

Or is it simply your own doubt that you are describing?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 4:19 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 7:42 AM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 373 of 560 (620655)
06-19-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by PaulK
06-19-2011 7:42 AM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

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


Please explain why the person that the jesus character was based on doesn't matter when discussing the jesus character.

PaulK writes:

From what I've heard the claim that the similarities predate Christianity is dodgy for a start.


From what I've heard they aren't dodgy.
There are definite similarities.
They may not all be as clear-cut as some mithra's supporters might want, but they still exist.
This is because finding information on mithra is difficult due to it being a long dead religion.
Interestingly though, there is a more varied selection of archaeological evidence for mithra than for jesus.

Though it seems that if the jesus character is based on a character in a pre-dating religion, then you would rather not discuss it.
But if jesus is a copy of a different character then you need to identify that historical character, as there is no actual historical jesus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 7:42 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 1:53 PM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 379 of 560 (620661)
06-19-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by PaulK
06-19-2011 1:53 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

This topic is about the historical Jesus. If there wasn't one that's all that need be said.


Since you seem to accept that there wasn't an historical jesus, I guess this discussion is closed.

No?
Then we should discuss how older religions helped define the jesus character.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 1:53 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 3:55 PM Panda has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1966 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 384 of 560 (620672)
06-19-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by PaulK
06-19-2011 3:55 PM


Re: Christianity without Jesus
PaulK writes:

Well it would be if you were right. But you're wrong. So it isn't over.

Then we should discuss how older religions helped define the jesus character.

(All you had to do was read all of my last post and we could have skipped this step.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2011 3:55 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2011 1:21 AM Panda has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019