In Search of Historic Jesus

[Raf]

11 hours ago, oldiesman said:

Road to Damascus?    Imagine having a life-changing experience from the Lord himself?  

Imagine someone claiming to have had such an experience and then bragging that he never confirmed his doctrine with the people who knew Jesus best.

A reminder that in this particular subforum, the testimony of the scripture is not authoritative. The claim of a Damascus conversion is a claim, not a documented fact. 

Long way of saying I'm atheist. Scripture is a claim, not proof.

[Raf]

8 hours ago, chockfull said:

Thank you.  From sentence 4 the scholarly consensus if you have to call it that was that it has an “authentic nucleus” with interpolations.

We had all been saying that was the scholarly consensus. Myself included.

Edited February 26 by Raf

[Raf]

8 hours ago, chockfull said:

What is my bias in this discussion?  I have departed from fundamentalist views and as such don’t hold as high of a value on “textual criticism” or modern anthropology extrapolating truth from pottery shards in as high of a regard as I did while a cult member.

Disclosure statement.

Huge can of worms here. I find this debate riddled with people who falsely claim to have no vested interest in "who's ultimately right." Carrier acts as if it doesn't matter to him one way or another. Methinks he doth protest too much. Ehrman says it makes no difference to him either. That's almost certainly a lie. Mythicists are ostracized in his field. To come out as one would be attempted career suicide. The majority of Bible scholars are practicing Christians [duh], so they have a religious interest in maintaining historicity as the default view. I would like to think I'm not biased here because whether I believe is unaffected by whether there was a historical figure at the outset of Christianity. But my interest in the subject betrays at least some bias. But bias has many meanings, only few of which lead to the conclusion that a person holding the bias cannot be trusted.

I trust you guys to be honest and hope I've earned your trust in that regard as well, even if we disagree about... everything.

[Raf]

8 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Josephus was not the only historian of the time. There was also Tacitus who mentions Christos (or did he misspell it Chrespus).

Don't let me forget to get back to Tacitus.

[oldiesman]

11 hours ago, Raf said:

Imagine someone claiming to have had such an experience and then bragging that he never confirmed his doctrine with the people who knew Jesus best.

A reminder that in this particular subforum, the testimony of the scripture is not authoritative. The claim of a Damascus conversion is a claim, not a documented fact. 

Long way of saying I'm atheist. Scripture is a claim, not proof.

ok fair enough.   I will admit that there are learn-ed folks who believe Jesus never existed in the flesh.    Guess I'll be a spectator of this thread and see what's up although it's a bit uncomfortable.

[Raf]

Most learned people believe there was some historical figure at the core of the founding of Christianity. I am inclined to believe they are incorrect, but I do not have their qualifications. Seeing as my vote really doesn't matter, and changing my mind would not change my [lack of] religious beliefs, I am entertained by the debate. No more, no less.

I should say that IF Acts is correct about Paul and the apostles, it makes sense that they would accept his testimony because God told them to. On what you would call a "flesh" level, that explanation is not even remotely plausible to me. They would have eaten Paul for breakfast, acting like he was an authority on the legacy of a man he never met but they did.

[Nathan_Jr]

3 hours ago, Raf said:

IF Acts is correct about Paul and the apostles

We don't have the apostles' side of the story, only Paul's and whoever wrote Acts to make Paul's claims fit just right. It seems to me Acts is fan fiction.

Does the chronology of Paul's travels in Acts even line up with what Paul himself chronicles in his own letters?

I know, I know. There's a glove for that.

 

Don't forget about Tacitus.

Edited February 26 by Nathan_Jr

[Raf]

So I decided not to reproduce Carrier's work on the TF because I cannot copy and paste it, and it's too long to type out. Suffice it to say that he does not agree with Steve Mason. The highlights:

Carrier does not believe the TF inspired a passage in Luke, but that the passage in Luke inspired the TF. That's a huge "which came first" issue, but he bases his conclusion on a line by line examination of the TF.

 

Quote

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

 

"If indeed ne ought to call him a man." Josephus didn't write that. Someone who believes Jesus is the Messiah, or God Himself, wrote that. Josephus was also not one to remark on "surprising deeds" without getting specific. "Won over many Jews and Greeks..." to what? In context, the TF is part of a list of things Pilate did that got the Jews angry. Why include something, the execution of a heretic, that would not have angered the Jews? The resurrection is treated with no explanation whatsoever. Did he escape the crucifixion? Or did he die and get up? He states neither, and HE WOULD HAVE. "The prophets of God foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him"? Who other than a devout Christian would have written such a thing? A thousand other marvels? Come now. Josephus was not a Christian, devout or otherwise. 

The TF, beginning to end, is a credal statement, not a historical one. I am inclined to accept Carrier's explanation over Mason's on this one, the scholarly consensus against Carrier notwithstanding. Eusebius made it up.

Ah, Tacitus.

I actually reached my conclusion about Tacitus before I read Carrier, my only exposure to the controversy being Ehrman's pro-historicity book. 

Tacitus writes in 116 AD. After describing the great fire of Rome (64 AD) and Nero's attempt to blame it on Christians. Tacitus writes:
 

Quote

 

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

 

 

 

I believe this passage is authentic. I do not believe it proves the history of the crucifixion, for a number of reasons. Primarily, the crucifixion is an aside to the point being made, which is that Nero blamed Christians for the great fire. So Tacitus had to define who Christians were. Well, by that time, the gospels were likely circulating by most accounts. It is doubtful that Tacitus independently sought out the records of Pilate's crucifixion to verify the execution of Jesus. It is far more likely, given the content and context of this passage, that Tacitus was merely relaying what Christians believed. He may have even believed it himself! But he cites no records and gives no indication that he is vouching for the accuracy of the account. It would be very much like me citing the date that Joseph Smith found the gold plates from which he translated the book of Mormon, knowing full well a. when it was alleged to have happened and b. that it did not.

Tacitus tells us what Christians believed in the early second century, not what actually transpired in the early first. He does tell us that by 64 AD one could distinguish in the Roman empire those who called themselves Christians and those who called themselves Jews. But that was not in dispute. We know that from Paul.

Carrier, if I am not mistaken, is open to the possibility that the Tacitus passage on Christ (note: not "Jesus) was a later interpolation. I don't think that position is worth considering. I think it is far more likely that Tacitus was reflecting what Christians believed, not what he had independently confirmed.

 

Edited February 26 by Raf

[cman]

13 hours ago, Raf said:

"Won over many Jews and Greeks..." to what?

exactly you don't know do you

but you chase it, to destroy it, just like the white whale

[Raf]

Please do not take a quote out of context and use it to challenge my knowledge of the gospel.

My comment was about what Josephus wrote [more to the point, what he implausible left out]. If you would like me to pick apart the gospel to demonstrate how petty, vindictive, arbitrary and stupid the whole house of cards is, I suggest you buckle up. Unlike you, I've asked those questions and considered them. So if you really want to go there, I'll be more than happy to be your guide.

Or we can continue discussing the topic instead of trying to make it about me.

Edited February 27 by Raf

[oldiesman]

50 minutes ago, Raf said:

Please do not take a quote out of context and use it to challenge my knowledge of the gospel.

My comment was about what Josephus wrote [more to the point, what he implausible left out]. If you would like me to pick apart the gospel to demonstrate how petty, vindictive, arbitrary and stupid the whole house of cards is, I suggest you buckle up. Unlike you, I've asked those questions and considered them. So if you really want to go there, I'll be more than happy to be your guide.

Or we can continue discussing the topic instead of trying to make it about me.

I am wondering if we can make believe scripture doesn't exist.   It has no authority therefore ANY references to it are mere claims, not proof.     (in this thread only)  LOL

[Raf]

Not exactly what I meant there, Oldies.

Scripture absolutely exists. And it is the authority ON DOCTRINE. I cannot say the Bible teaches Jesus sinned, for example, because the Bible says he did not sin.

Once you eliminate the Bible AS AN AUTHORITY, you STILL have a Bible that says Jesus never sinned. But you also have every right to view that claim with the tiniest hint of "Yeah right." ESPECIALLY because the Bible's Jesus practically equates temptation with sin and goes on to say he was tempted in all points like as we are.

On topic, the Bible does indeed teach that Paul had that Damascus experience and that he really did receive his Revelation of the gospel from visions of the risen Jesus and not his followers. I'm just calling bs on the notion that Jesus' followers would ever have gone along with it... unless Jesus was never an earthly being in the first place and people like Peter, James and others Paul named had no more credibility than Paul as his followers.

We need the Bible, in other words, to know and understand the claims. But when evaluating the credibility of those claims, the Bible cannot serve as its own authority. That would be circular reasoning: it's true because the Bible says it's true and what the Bible says is true because the Bible says what the Bible says is true.

You would not accept the authority of any other holy book on that logic. All I ask in THIS subforum as that you treat the Bible with the same skepticism that you treat the Quran, the Book of Mormon and the autobiography of Elon Musk.

Edited February 27 by Raf

[cman]

4 hours ago, Raf said:

If you would like me to pick apart the gospel to demonstrate how petty, vindictive, arbitrary and stupid the whole house of cards is, I suggest you buckle up.

no thanks

[Raf]

I suspected as much.

[cman]

just the facts huh? the very reason for chasing your white whale, he hurt you?

it's impossible to kill it off, as in moby dick it will end you, fortunately there is things bigger than you that will come in to play, and save you

Edited February 27 by cman

[Raf]

I appreciate your effort at being patronizing with a condescending tone, but I submit you are not very good at it. Why don't you ask the spirit why it can't actually show you evidence so instead has you making personal attacks? Perhaps it's because you never learned how to study an issue on your own? So all you can do is invoke an imaginary friend whose existence you can't demonstrate in order to try to make me look unbalanced?

How about you demonstrate your evidence instead of talking $#!t and trying to make it about me? Everyone else is managing it. Why do you lack the maturity to do what everyone else is doing even while disagreeing?

Edited February 27 by Raf

[cman]

evidence? It's bigger than you, bigger than me. And you will get the evidence, that much is certain, nothing but love for you.

[Raf]

Ok, so you got nothing. Thanks for participating. Kindly refrain from psychoanalyzing me in future posts. You are very bad at it.

[cman]

Apparently not....

[Rocky]

51 minutes ago, Raf said:

I appreciate your effort at being patronizing with a condescending tone, but I submit you are not very good at it. Why don't you ask the spirit why it can't actually show you evidence so instead has you making personal attacks? Perhaps it's because you never learned how to study an issue on your own? So all you can do is invoke an imaginary friend whose existence you can't demonstrate in order to try to make me look unbalanced?

 

52 minutes ago, Raf said:

Why do you lack the maturity to do what everyone else is doing even while disagreeing?

 

22 minutes ago, Raf said:

Ok, so you got nothing. Thanks for participating. Kindly refrain from psychoanalyzing me in future posts. You are very bad at it.

Reflecting back on these responses, Raf, it seems you could have used emojis to say pretty much the same thing without sounding defensive or resorting to name calling yourself. For example   

N'est pas?

[cman]

if you happen to see yourself in a mirror, don't blame the mirror 

[Raf]

Cman, I'm trying to be polite, but you're ... taking us off topic. If you have something to say about the topic, please continue. If you have something to say about me, you're off topic.

Edited February 27 by Raf

[cman]

I was talking about you? hmmmmm interesting historical record of Jesus Christ includes lots of stories.....

[Raf]

The "historical record" actually contains surprisingly little, to the point that we're able to narrow it down to a few people who acknowledge decades after his alleged life that there was such a thing as Christianity and what its adherents believed, but close to nothing independent of the religion itself. It's almost like looking for Joseph Smith's gold plates. No independent evidence they exist, but lots of dependent evidence from Smith's followers.

[chockfull]

On 2/26/2024 at 11:41 AM, Raf said:

So I decided not to reproduce Carrier's work on the TF because I cannot copy and paste it, and it's too long to type out. Suffice it to say that he does not agree with Steve Mason. The highlights:

Carrier does not believe the TF inspired a passage in Luke, but that the passage in Luke inspired the TF. That's a huge "which came first" issue, but he bases his conclusion on a line by line examination of the TF.

 

 

"If indeed ne ought to call him a man." Josephus didn't write that. Someone who believes Jesus is the Messiah, or God Himself, wrote that. Josephus was also not one to remark on "surprising deeds" without getting specific. "Won over many Jews and Greeks..." to what? In context, the TF is part of a list of things Pilate did that got the Jews angry. Why include something, the execution of a heretic, that would not have angered the Jews? The resurrection is treated with no explanation whatsoever. Did he escape the crucifixion? Or did he die and get up? He states neither, and HE WOULD HAVE. "The prophets of God foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him"? Who other than a devout Christian would have written such a thing? A thousand other marvels? Come now. Josephus was not a Christian, devout or otherwise. 

The TF, beginning to end, is a credal statement, not a historical one. I am inclined to accept Carrier's explanation over Mason's on this one, the scholarly consensus against Carrier notwithstanding. Eusebius made it up.

Ah, Tacitus.

I actually reached my conclusion about Tacitus before I read Carrier, my only exposure to the controversy being Ehrman's pro-historicity book. 

Tacitus writes in 116 AD. After describing the great fire of Rome (64 AD) and Nero's attempt to blame it on Christians. Tacitus writes:
 

I believe this passage is authentic. I do not believe it proves the history of the crucifixion, for a number of reasons. Primarily, the crucifixion is an aside to the point being made, which is that Nero blamed Christians for the great fire. So Tacitus had to define who Christians were. Well, by that time, the gospels were likely circulating by most accounts. It is doubtful that Tacitus independently sought out the records of Pilate's crucifixion to verify the execution of Jesus. It is far more likely, given the content and context of this passage, that Tacitus was merely relaying what Christians believed. He may have even believed it himself! But he cites no records and gives no indication that he is vouching for the accuracy of the account. It would be very much like me citing the date that Joseph Smith found the gold plates from which he translated the book of Mormon, knowing full well a. when it was alleged to have happened and b. that it did not.

Tacitus tells us what Christians believed in the early second century, not what actually transpired in the early first. He does tell us that by 64 AD one could distinguish in the Roman empire those who called themselves Christians and those who called themselves Jews. But that was not in dispute. We know that from Paul.

Carrier, if I am not mistaken, is open to the possibility that the Tacitus passage on Christ (note: not "Jesus) was a later interpolation. I don't think that position is worth considering. I think it is far more likely that Tacitus was reflecting what Christians believed, not what he had independently confirmed.

 

Tacitus description of Rome is downright hilarious and the best I’ve ever read 

It is plausible that there is a scribe or forgery error in Josephus or Eusibius or that one or the other had an agenda.

This thread is turning out like one of those hour long “In Search Of” shows I’ve seen.  Sasquatch, the Bermuda Triangle, etc.  

I guess some might also spin off a thread on a literary criticism of Moby Dick?  Or we might also do a dueling verses thread on hypocrisy and logic in the OT?

 

I guess the old VP rant on how where the Bible speaks on history it is accurate fundamentalism view isn’t exactly true or accurate?