Skepticwiki historical jesus

[jjramsey]

jjramsey is the author of that Skepticwiki piece. I'm starting to believe that he really wants to believe in a historical Jesus for more reasons that just getting history 'right'.

Which explains, of course, why I'd argue on the basis of inaccuracies in the New Testament.

Every single one.

Your question is too broad.

This is evasive. If you really think the mythicist case explains things much better, then you should be able to rattle off the reasons why.

 

[AWPrime]

I don't find the notion (that it was mostly one big ripp off) too bizarre. Considering that new religions are doing it all the time.

 

[geni]

I don't find the notion (that it was mostly one big ripp off) too bizarre. Considering that new religions are doing it all the time.

However in most cases the founding figure appears to exist L. Ron Hubbard existed. Adi Da Samraj exists. Shoko Asahara exists. Alice Bailey existed. Helena Blavatsky existed.

 

[geni]

Every single one.

Your question is too broad.

Your answer is meaningless. You have stated you favor a position. It does not seem unreasonable to ask why.

 

[geetarmoore]

This is evasive. If you really think the mythicist case explains things much better, then you should be able to rattle off the reasons why.

I just don't feel the need to have to rehash the case made that you must already know.

1) The evolution of Christianity from a variety of previous spiritual viewpoints and legends.
2) The lack of any contemporaneous information of Jesus recorded during his life.
3) Active 'mystery religion' and god-men cults
4) The complete Gnostic appearance of Paul.
5) No Gospel tradition known by Paul.
6) No 'Q' tradition known by Paul.
6) Fractured Gospel tradition that both borrows and pays homage to previous hero tradition, as well as OT midrash.
7) Apologists writings that reflect the Gnostic belief in Jesus up into the mid 2nd century.

The whole thing shows an evolution from Paul and his belief in a spiritual savior, to a SLOWLY emerging histocracy. This is much more believable to me than the alternative theory that makes you suppose;

1) Jesus existed and was Crucified. (No records of any of his miracles, message, or resurrection)
2) Nobody for the next two decades really cared or even much noticed. (must be excused away - he was a 'nobody')
3) 20 years later, Paul had a 'Vision' of Christ, but chose to ignore or not learn of his saviors earthly history. (must be excused away - Paul wasn't interested in these matters)
4) When Paul should have related the words and actions of Jesus to resolve doctrine disputes, he didn't. - (must be excused away...)
etc. etc. etc.

It's just too much to take. Maybe all of the various apologies for these situations are valid, and that's why I'm agnostic in this regard.
But, I think it's foolhardy to believe that Occams Razor leads to a historical Christ.

 

[geni]

I just don't feel the need to have to rehash the case made that you must already know.

1) The evolution of Christianity from a variety of previous spiritual viewpoints and legends.

Doesn't really work.

2) The lack of any contemporaneous information of Jesus recorded during his life.

Stangly we don't know the names of many carpenters from around 30 AD. They guy wonders around a minor roman provence mostly staying away from the major cities and then manages to be perhaps a one week hit in jerulsalem. Outside egypt our records from that period are minimal mostly constisting of the various histories people though worth copying and recopying.

3) Active 'mystery religion' and god-men cults

So?

4) The complete Gnostic appearance of Paul.

What defintion of gnosticism are you useing here?

1) Jesus existed and was Crucified. (No records of any of his miracles, message, or resurrection)

No reason for this not to be the case.

2) Nobody for the next two decades really cared or even much noticed. (must be excused away - he was a 'nobody')

Throw in the issue that his followers for the most part stayed in that backward roman provience. In any case who would notice?

4) When Paul should have related the words and actions of Jesus to resolve doctrine disputes, he didn't. - (must be excused away...)

Since quite a few of those dissputes were with the group aparently lead by Peter (ie the group that had been with jesus) he would have been stupid to do so.

It's just too much to take. Maybe all of the various apologies for these situations are valid, and that's why I'm agnostic in this regard.
But, I think it's foolhardy to believe that Occams Razor leads to a historical Christ.

The problem is the speed at which jesus the person appears. If you take ~30AD as the date of death for jesus then the author of Mark was writing about him as a real person within 70 years (probably significantly less). You also have the problem of why the acts focuses so much attention on a group who's only claim to fame is to have met jesus. Without that Peter and co are pretty insignificant.

 

[pipelineaudio]

In other words: the bible says so, so its true?

doesnt sound so far from the Loosers to me

 

[geetarmoore]

Doesn't really work.



Stangly we don't know the names of many carpenters from around 30 AD. They guy wonders around a minor roman provence mostly staying away from the major cities and then manages to be perhaps a one week hit in jerulsalem. Outside egypt our records from that period are minimal mostly constisting of the various histories people though worth copying and recopying.



So?



What defintion of gnosticism are you useing here?


No reason for this not to be the case.



Throw in the issue that his followers for the most part stayed in that backward roman provience. In any case who would notice?



Since quite a few of those dissputes were with the group aparently lead by Peter (ie the group that had been with jesus) he would have been stupid to do so.



The problem is the speed at which jesus the person appears. If you take ~30AD as the date of death for jesus then the author of Mark was writing about him as a real person within 70 years (probably significantly less). You also have the problem of why the acts focuses so much attention on a group who's only claim to fame is to have met jesus. Without that Peter and co are pretty insignificant.

If you assume that the whole NT is an accurate history, then you have no choice but to believe in Jesus, the historic person. I'll agree!

Happy Easter!

Enjoy the Sunday message. It's a good one. Redemtion and all that.. Makes you feel reborn.

 

[geni]

In other words: the bible says so, so its true?

Strawman.

 

[geni]

If you assume that the whole NT is an accurate history, then you have no choice but to believe in Jesus, the historic person. I'll agree!

Strawman.

If jesus didn't exist why is Mark writeing as if he did?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Strawman.

If jesus didn't exist why is Mark writeing as if he did?

LOL!!!!

If Smaug didnt exist, why is Bilbo writing as if he did?

 

[geetarmoore]

Strawman.

If jesus didn't exist why is Mark writeing as if he did?

Why did Stephen King write as if Cujo existed?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And yet you reject the bible as a source?

Of historical evidence? Yes.

Of allegorical truths about the condition of humanity? It's a source.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

JC did not exist!

Alexander the Great:

* had portents associated with his birth and death
* suffered from epilepsy
* was bisexual
* claimed divine ancestry
* owned a horse with vestigial toes
* was a great general
* founded an empire
* visited Egypt
* was murdered by his colleagues

Therefore, Julius Caesar is a myth.

Dr Adequate,

Usually I find you very irritating. This time you made me laugh out loud.



Geoff

 

[geni]

LOL!!!!

If Smaug didnt exist, why is Bilbo writing as if he did?

Tolkien didn't.

You now have the problem that seveal people sat down and worte out rather an elaborate fraud and aranged for it's disribution which would be a rather resouce heavy activity.

Occams razor favor a highly exaggerated account rather an a highly complex deliberate fraud.

 

[geni]

Of historical evidence? Yes.

Look at your statement about D. Murdock.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Look at your statement about D. Murdock.

I've never heard of D. Murdock.

 

[geni]

I've never heard of D. Murdock.

They generaly use the pen name Acharya S.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Tolkien didn't.

You now have the problem that seveal people sat down and worte out rather an elaborate fraud and aranged for it's disribution which would be a rather resouce heavy activity.

Occams razor favor a highly exaggerated account rather an a highly complex deliberate fraud.

Ahhh, duh why didnt I see it before? I get it now

The bible says it so its true

 

[geetarmoore]

Tolkien didn't.

You now have the problem that seveal people sat down and worte out rather an elaborate fraud and aranged for it's disribution which would be a rather resouce heavy activity.

Occams razor favor a highly exaggerated account rather an a highly complex deliberate fraud.

Don't think I assume a fraud. I never used these words.

I think Paul believed his vision of Jesus.

I believe Mark was writing an earthly (fictional) 'story' based a bit on the writings of Paul. I can't say the same for Matthew or Luke. They may have believed they were re-telling history, and just re-wrote it for their respective audience, adding a sayings document that was late to be attributed to Jesus.

John seems to be a full-on Theological update of the history, fixing things here and there that didn't come true (Jesus' failure to return before the end of the current generation, for example). I see it being intended as a replacement for the synoptic's.

Acts? I believe it's a second century wiring that was used to settle doctrine disputes between the Pauline and Gospel traditions. However, I still have more research to do here.

Evolution. Not a fraud, nor a conspiracy.