Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 07:25 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 07:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually it's more complicated than that. Reading Philo's writings on "the word" you could swear you were reading the Gospel of John. (The "Word" existed, according to some, as a separate divine being, and a case can be made it's present in the earliest Hebrew writings).

Yes, or any Gnostic manuscript from the Nag Hammadi.


Quote: There were all sorts of divine beings (while not in any way equivalent to Yahweh), but nonetheless which existed in the "Heavenly Host" of the Hebrews. "Monotheism" as applied to the Hebrews can be very misleading. At the very least it was "monolaterlist polytheism".

"In the beginning God (Elohim in hebrew, plural meaning "gods") created the heavens and the earth.

"And God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness."

Thumbsup

But just try to tell the Jews any of this.

Not entirely. Yahweh had a WIFE. A divine consort, worshiped in a number of the worship centers, for many centuries. There were all sorts of LEVELS (hierarchies) of divine beings. They were all recognized, but Third Isaiah finally insisted on strict monotheism for WORSHIP. The presumption that the notion of (many) Roman deities would be outright rejected because Judaism was monotheistic is simplistic.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 08:32 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(14-11-2014 07:15 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  “What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

An amusing notion, that there are no birth records, trial transcripts or death certificates concerning Jesus. The author you cite should also mention that there are no DVD or audio recordings, either! Common sense seems to have departed him. The Jesus of 30AD started a small but rapidly growing movement in Israel, and remained a predominately Jewish phenomenon until late in the first century. It was only AFTER his death, and a brief 3 year ministry, that word of Jesus began to slowly spread from Israel . How could Roman or Greek writers make mention of a person during his life that they had never heard of, with a religion they did not understand? It would be decades after his death before there were enough Christians for the pagans to scarcely notice, let alone comment on. The author you cite would seem to have no answer for that. Do you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 08:42 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2014 10:03 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 07:11 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 02:59 PM)Free Wrote:  That's already been done on this forum. Start reading at the following link:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid213945

I see more of your interpretation of the writings. I don't come to the same conclusions when I look at them.

I see several possibilities regarding Jesus:
a. there was a historical Jesus preaching around the year 30
b. there was some other individual that was misplaced in time when the stories were written
c. there were multiple sources that were combined into a single person
d. there was a mythological being that was euhemerized
e. multiple mythological beings were merged
e. the character was invented out of whole cloth
f. some combination of the above

You have apparently decided that (a) is the most probable answer given the available evidence. I've looked at the same evidence and think that the probability of (a) is, at best, no higher than some of the others. I don't believe that there is a god because the evidence presented for that claim is insufficient and in that same way I don't believe that there was a historical Jesus also because the evidence presented is insufficient.

I doubt there is much point in continuing because unless you have anything that hasn't already been presented the best we can do is agree to disagree.


Your list is perfect, Free seems to have made up his mind that (A) is correct. Without a significant amount of evidence to support his position as being true. Yet disregarding without sufficiently demonstrating that (B through F) could NOT be just as relevant. This is why I stated before, arguing for a 'historical' Jesus is irrelevant. It no further advances the cause of the theist than that of us, the Atheist at all.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 09:02 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 08:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 07:25 PM)Free Wrote:  Yes, or any Gnostic manuscript from the Nag Hammadi.



"In the beginning God (Elohim in hebrew, plural meaning "gods") created the heavens and the earth.

"And God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness."

Thumbsup

But just try to tell the Jews any of this.

Not entirely. Yahweh had a WIFE. A divine consort, worshiped in a number of the worship centers, for many centuries. There were all sorts of LEVELS (hierarchies) of divine beings. They were all recognized, but Third Isaiah finally insisted on strict monotheism for WORSHIP. The presumption that the notion of (many) Roman deities would be outright rejected because Judaism was monotheistic is simplistic.

ALL Roman deities were rejected by both Orthodox and Hellenized Jews in the 1st century, and for centuries immediately before, and all centuries since. The historical evidence is so abundant it is indisputable.

It may seem simplistic, but that`s only because that is as simple as it was.

The Jews back then were as fanatical about their monotheism as the Arabians are today. What do you think would happen today if- for a hypothetical analogy- a Christianized America invaded Saudi Arabia and started building churches, putting up statues of Jesus and Mary, and imposed a democracy with creeds that said something to the effect of "In Jesus we Trust?"

Heads would roll ... literally .... right down the street with chants of Allu Akbar heard every 5 minutes.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2014 10:36 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  The Jews back then were as fanatical about their monotheism as the Arabians are today. What do you think would happen today if- for a hypothetical analogy- a Christianized America invaded Saudi Arabia and started building churches, putting up statues of Jesus and Mary, and imposed a democracy with creeds that said something to the effect of "In Jesus we Trust?"

Heads would roll ... literally .... right down the street with chants of Allu Akbar heard every 5 minutes.

So you assert. The evidence is what ? Your presuppositions ? If the "logos" of Philo (and the ease apparently that the divinity of Jesus could be accepted by the Alexandrian Jews, and other communities of Jews), it sort of puts the lie to your analogy it seems. You still don't seem to get the orders and hierarchies of other "divine beings" the Jews accepted. "Monotheism" to a Jew was that they agreed to *worship* one god, NOT that they believed in only one god. THAT was the *covenant* -- to *worship* the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They *believed* that all sorts of other gods and divine beings existed.
http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Gods-Poly...ew+culture

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 09:06 AM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 10:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 09:02 PM)Free Wrote:  The Jews back then were as fanatical about their monotheism as the Arabians are today. What do you think would happen today if- for a hypothetical analogy- a Christianized America invaded Saudi Arabia and started building churches, putting up statues of Jesus and Mary, and imposed a democracy with creeds that said something to the effect of "In Jesus we Trust?"

Heads would roll ... literally .... right down the street with chants of Allu Akbar heard every 5 minutes.

So you assert. The evidence is what ? Your presuppositions ? If the "logos" of Philo (and the ease apparently that the divinity of Jesus could be accepted by the Alexandrian Jews, and other communities of Jews), it sort of puts the lie to your analogy it seems. You still don't seem to get the orders and hierarchies of other "divine beings" the Jews accepted. "Monotheism" to a Jew was that they agreed to *worship* one god, NOT that they believed in only one god. THAT was the *covenant* -- to *worship* the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They *believed* that all sorts of other gods and divine beings existed.
http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Gods-Poly...ew+culture

Let me repeat ...

"All ROMAN deities were rejected ..."

It really does not matter what other gods the Jews believed existed within their own religion. What mattered to them was that the Romans would erect statues and other images of Roman gods, or other persons considered to be gods, in the synagogues and in open view within Jewish districts.

The Jews simply would not have any images of gods imposed upon them. Hell, they could not- and still can't to this day- erect an image of the god they believe in.

The Romans were the invaders in Judea. Of course they were hated by the Jews. Over time, when the invading Romans understood the monotheistic religion of the Jews and how they rejected Roman gods, the Romans hated the Jews.

Both of the wars between the Romans and the Jews occurred long after the Romans had already invaded Judea, and long after Rome had occupied Judea. There was more than enough time for hatred to fester, and for a war of religious ideology to break out from the result of that hatred.

Sure, you can add many other reasons why they went to war with each other, but at the root of virtually all those reasons was a festering mutual hatred for each other.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 08:17 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 07:41 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 07:11 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I doubt there is much point in continuing because unless you have anything that hasn't already been presented the best we can do is agree to disagree.

I have much more, but it gets so tedious to constantly argue about it.

My position remains the same.

80% for a historical Jesus.

I can respect that.

MAYBE 5% for a historical Jesus IMO

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
17-11-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 08:32 PM)BPatton Wrote:  An amusing notion, that there ... How could Roman or Greek writers make mention of a person during his life that they had never heard of, with a religion they did not understand? It would be decades after his death before there were enough Christians for the pagans to scarcely notice, let alone comment on. The author you cite would seem to have no answer for that. Do you?

The gospels talk of Jesus preaching to multitudes, disrupting the temple services, and being involved in other events. It seems reasonable to expect that there'd be some references in letters, histories, and other documents if those events happened. The complete lack of any corroborating evidence doesn't mean they didn't happen but does reduce the probability that the gospels are accurate and can;t be taken as the gospel truth. Big Grin

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
17-11-2014, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 17-11-2014 09:12 AM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 08:26 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 08:32 PM)BPatton Wrote:  An amusing notion, that there ... How could Roman or Greek writers make mention of a person during his life that they had never heard of, with a religion they did not understand? It would be decades after his death before there were enough Christians for the pagans to scarcely notice, let alone comment on. The author you cite would seem to have no answer for that. Do you?

The gospels talk of Jesus preaching to multitudes, disrupting the temple services, and being involved in other events. It seems reasonable to expect that there'd be some references in letters, histories, and other documents if those events happened. The complete lack of any corroborating evidence doesn't mean they didn't happen but does reduce the probability that the gospels are accurate and can;t be taken as the gospel truth. Big Grin

The gospels are in no way accurate as far as absolute history is concerned. If the gospels have any historical significance at all, then they merely show a history of the belief system of early Christianity. That is where their historical value really exists.

But the one thing that appears to be consistent in virtually all writings, including the new testament, is this:

A man named Jesus, regarded as the Christ, was crucified by Pontius Pilate.

This is the one thing that no one with intellectual honesty can deny as far as consistency is concerned. It is this level of consistency that I remain 80% in favor of a historical Jesus, with the other 20% missing because we do not have an independent real-time non-Christian record of Jesus of Nazareth.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 09:25 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(17-11-2014 08:10 AM)Free Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 10:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you assert. The evidence is what ? Your presuppositions ? If the "logos" of Philo (and the ease apparently that the divinity of Jesus could be accepted by the Alexandrian Jews, and other communities of Jews), it sort of puts the lie to your analogy it seems. You still don't seem to get the orders and hierarchies of other "divine beings" the Jews accepted. "Monotheism" to a Jew was that they agreed to *worship* one god, NOT that they believed in only one god. THAT was the *covenant* -- to *worship* the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They *believed* that all sorts of other gods and divine beings existed.
http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Gods-Poly...ew+culture

Let me repeat ...

"All ROMAN deities were rejected ..."

It really does not matter what other gods the Jews believed existed within their own religion. What mattered to them was that the Romans would erect statues and other images of Roman gods, or other persons considered to be gods, in the synagogues and in open view within Jewish districts.

The Jews simply would not have any images of gods imposed upon them. Hell, they could not- and still can't to this day- erect an image of the god they believe in.

The Romans were the invaders in Judea. Of course they were hated by the Jews. Over time, when the invading Romans understood the monotheistic religion of the Jews and how they rejected Roman gods, the Romans hated the Jews.

Both of the wars between the Romans and the Jews occurred long after the Romans had already invaded Judea, and long after Rome had occupied Judea. There was more than enough time for hatred to fester, and for a war of religious ideology to break out from the result of that hatred.

Sure, you can add many other reasons why they went to war with each other, but at the root of virtually all those reasons was a festering mutual hatred for each other.

Drinking Beverage

You have some good points. But if the Romans "hated" them that much, at any point they could have just crushed them. Judea was a backwater unimportant province where prominent Romans were never assigned as governors. I doubt they cared much, one way or the other. As far as consistency goes, a consistent myth, is still a myth. "Crucified by Pontius Pilate" would actually be inaccurate. "Crucified WHILE Pontius Pilate was Prefect" may have been more accurate. During the Pax Romana trouble-makers were summarily executed without a trial. Galilean peasants were not afforded a trial. He may have given a "go-ahead" of some sort. I can't imagine there ever really was a trial. Hundreds if not thousands were crucified. Were they all tried ? No.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: