|
Author
|
Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 321 of 560 (620533)
06-17-2011 1:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 316 by Panda
06-17-2011 12:31 PM
|
|
Re: Lots of dead messiahs?
When asked for information about messiahs, Jon posts a list of messiah claimants. 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. But then again, that is obvious to anyone who isn't being a troll. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 316 by Panda, posted 06-17-2011 12:31 PM | | Panda has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 322 of 560 (620534)
06-17-2011 1:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 317 by crashfrog
06-17-2011 12:31 PM
|
|
Re: Christianity without Jesus
how do you connect the Jesus mythology to any particular individual? Who says we have to? It is enough to propose for our explanation that such a character existed; it isn't necessary that we go pick him out of a Where's Waldo sketch.
If would-be messias were all over the place, if they were as common as you say, that actually undercuts your case for a real historical Jesus. Nope; it just makes the existence of an historical Jesus that much more probable. Just like loads of men wearing tuxedos named James makes an historical James Bond more probable. Does it prove anything? Not really; but it does mean that your explanation needs be more probable than mine. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 317 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2011 12:31 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Lots of dead messiahs?
But neither was Jesus. Isn't that your contention? Obviously: he failed big time.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 324 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2011 1:57 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Christianity without Jesus
If the "Jesus" that you connect the mythology to isn't an actual person who existed, then you've not actually advanced the proposition that there was a historical Jesus - you've simply made an argument that there could have been a historical Jesus. Historical Jesus explains the evidence. Your explanation doesn't even come close, as others have already pointed out. It is so severely deficient that it only leaves us with more questions than we had before proposing it. Your explanation, incidentally, is also completely unevidenced. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 323 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2011 1:56 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 336 of 560 (620573)
06-17-2011 7:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 320 by Jazzns
06-17-2011 1:09 PM
|
|
Re: Lots of dead messiahs?
They led rebellions that were certain to give the Romans a reason to care. Well, yes, doing something a little over the top is sort of what is required to get some contemporary mention in history. Even then there is no guarantee that you won't end up the king who is just a name on a list compiled 100 years after you die.
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. That's just the thing: you can think someone's the Messiah before they do anything messianic; but you cannot rightly consider them to still be the Messiah once they clearly fail to live up to expectation, unless, of course, you radically alter your understanding of what it means to be a 'Messiah'. This is the appeal of the historical Jesus: the hypothesis simply explains this radical alteration of messianic understanding so well, and the character is so very fitting for the time and place that it requires quite an alternative to consider replacing the hypothesis. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 320 by Jazzns, posted 06-17-2011 1:09 PM | | Jazzns has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Christianity without Jesus
How can you argue for a historical jesus and NOT think xtianity is true? Because Christianity has almost nothing to do with Jesus. Clearly.
IF jeebus existed in the context the bible paints him But that is not the historical Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible is an entirely different point than the historical Jesus.
Secondly: why is it that it is "acceptable" for religion to have excuses for the lack of evidence as the only evidence. It's not. And no one is making excuses for religion. We are, afterall, talking about history here.
This thread reeks of all the flood and exodus threads, wherein, the only "evidence" provided is why there is no evidence..... No. It doesn't.
Not once in this thread has anyone pointed to anything and said "THIS is a piece of hard evidence for the existence of jeebus". Because no such evidence exists; no one has suggested that such evidence does exist. We are all well aware of the circumstantial nature of the evidence.
Instead, we have apologetics saying (for example) "well, they didn't record all the executions in that time" I cannot speak for the apologists, but I can say that I never made this argument, nor have I yet to see it made in this thread.
Name ONE other subject where you would accept these lines of reasoning as evidence. They aren't evidence... so I cannot think of any. Jon
Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Jesus
Your religion is based on this jeebus fella Whose religion?
whose story is told in the bible and only the bible. New Testament Apocrypha If what your book says about this chap is untrue, where does that leave your religion? Who said it was untrue?
I thought you were arguing for the existence of an historical jesus. Huh? Of course not. I'm open to other possibilities; if only anyone would bother presenting some.
The base tenet of xtianity is "jesus saves if you ask him". We're not discussing the tenets of Christianity; if they become important in the conversation, then we certainly can talk about them, but they are not discussion points in themselves.
Without jeebus, there IS no xtianity. I doubt you even noticed it, but read literally this comment allows us to conclude that there was a Jesus since there is a Christianity. Jon
Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Jesus
Do you have an actual position to present? The argument from silence is an old ahistoricist PRATT. It'd really be nice to see something new and fresh. Perhaps taking your own crack at filling in the blanks in Message 287 would help move the discussion along. Jon
Love your enemies!
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
No Position Presented
Yes: that jesus is a fictitious character and christians are mindless idiots for lapping it up. Okay; no position. I get it.
The FSM (praise be upon his meatballs) is real. Prove he's not. Oh wait, we actually have pictures and writings of our prophet. And no interest in honest discussion either, it would appear. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 344 by hooah212002, posted 06-18-2011 4:19 AM | | hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Christianity without Jesus
If you are granting that jesus was just some dude and the bible is not telling an accurate depiction, then what is the point? The point is, as the thread title tells us, to reconstruct the historical Jesus. If you don't think this a worth-while endeavor, then that's fine; but it's the reason the rest of us are here. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 349 by hooah212002, posted 06-18-2011 10:34 AM | | hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 363 of 560 (620637)
06-18-2011 10:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 361 by crashfrog
06-18-2011 9:55 PM
|
|
Re: Christianity without Jesus
f the supposed "Historical Jesus" didn't do anything like that, then he's by definition not the Historical Jesus Why not simply look to what the historicists define as the 'historical Jesus' instead of making up your own versions of an historical Jesus that have nothing to do with the character proposed by historians?
Perhaps the difference is merely a 1% difference in likelihood of veracity between embarrassing claims and self-gratifying claims. In that case the principle of embarrassment is no guide at all to what is most likely true or false, since we're not comparing an embarrassing claim with a non-embarrassing claim. That's nice, Crash; but statistics pulled from your ass are of little value to the rest of us.
No, I'm asking a single question, and it's the same question I've been asking throughout: The Gospels and Paul make a claim that a person called Jesus existed. What evidence exists to support this claim? So far the answer has been "the Gospels and Paul", but that's clearly circular. A claim can't be self-supporting (unless, trivially, the claim is "I am making a claim.") Your question is ridiculous. And this is why it hasn't been answered. You are simply asking us whether or not we have any sources other than the current texts that claim the existence of an historical Jesus. Of course we don't; because the current texts are a collection of all the known texts that claim the existence of an historical Jesus. Is there any reason we should ignore the current texts in a search for historical verification of Jesus? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 361 by crashfrog, posted 06-18-2011 9:55 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 377 of 560 (620659)
06-19-2011 3:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 371 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 12:57 PM
|
|
Re: Christianity without Jesus
But a figure who did absolutely nothing that would have brought him to the attention of mythmakers as someone on which to base mythology by definition can't have been the basis for the mythology. Huh? Who said that this was one of the defining characteristics of the historical Jesus? Are you just making up the strawmen as you go along?
No, it's not. It's never ridiculous to ask what evidence supports a claim. That's the basis of rationality, a practice which you have apparently abandoned. There are canonical and non-canonical sources that talk about Jesus; they very widely in their theological take on him, but they all have some very basic things in common, e.g., they agree that he was executed.
Yes! They should be ignored because they are utterly untrustworthy, mutually plagaristic, cannot corroborate themselves, were written long decades after the events they supposedly chronicle, and are full of impossible invention and embellishment. The Gospels are the testimony of liars. All of this was covered more than a hundred posts ago, you know, when you thought this whole topic was beneath "reasonable people." Well, you just described pretty much every historical document ever written. So, what do you expect to be left? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 371 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 12:57 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 385 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 11:32 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
Re: Christianity without Jesus
The earliest date given for the authorship of Mark is 50 AD, and the date given for the authorship of the Pauline epistles is 51 AD. Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Why not bother actually learning something about the topic before spitting off stupidity? It is almost unanimous amongst serious scholars that Mark was written during or shortly after the first revolt, around 70 a.d..
Anything with a connection to the Bible must be disregarded absent some kind of real evidence. That's nice. You want to throw out all the evidence and then complain that there isn't any. That's nice. Let us know when you're ready to be serious. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 374 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 1:22 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 383 of 560 (620671)
06-19-2011 6:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 370 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 12:49 PM
|
|
Methodology
You don't, for instance, take the claims of the Gospel and Paul about the resurrection at face value, even though they're in unanimous agreement that it happened. Regardless of its appearance in multiple "separate" Gospels and the work of Paul, you take it as a single claim that is supported by no evidence. The goal is not to determine whether every claim is true or false; the goal is to look for the best explanations behind the claims. Sometimes the best explanation is that the claim is true or mostly based on truth. Other times there are better explanations. In the case of the resurrection reports, the better explanation isn't that it actually happened. In the case of some of the other material, however, the better explanation may easily be that the events described actually happened. This is based on established methodologies developed and advanced by the scholars Mod cited in the previous post. What are your methodologies? Why should we use them? How do they lead to better explanations? Do you have any methodology in mind for sorting out which explanations are to be preferred over others? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 370 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 12:49 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 390 of 560 (620684)
06-20-2011 12:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 386 by crashfrog
06-19-2011 11:34 PM
|
|
Re: Christianity without Jesus
Documented fact. Then provide the documentation.
By which of course you mean "scholars who believe in the existence of a historical Jesus Christ." For real scholars who follow evidence there's evidence, apparently, for an authorship of Mark at least as early as 50 AD. You might want to cite those scholars. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 386 by crashfrog, posted 06-19-2011 11:34 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
