Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by outhouse » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:08 am

Ulan wrote:A statement I didn't make. Now you are mixing things up. I was not talking about the setting of the story, but when and in which situation it was written, and that was a situation when pretty much all potential witnesses were dead. Which completely evaporates your grand "witness" statement.

.
Your missing the point.

The point is these possible witnesses managed to remember Pilate and Caiaphas and the temple in detail, there no reason why they would not remember the star of the show on a Passover.


Witnesses were still alive with Paul

Witnesses were still alive as parts of what would be Mark existed.


Had anyone denounced it, those traditions would still be alive in oral traditions and there would have been people attesting to the opposite. Just the way we see with Paul. Paul was hated and loved and there were many traditions against him.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by outhouse » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:15 am

Ulan wrote:This statement is, as you tend to say, a leap of faith,


As I said, I don't claim you are wrong. I just say you overstate your case.
Mark was a compilation of preexisting traditions. Evidence points to this not faith.

Many of which would have been shared at Passover. That may be faith, but in all logic and reason, you would need to explain why a group would not share traditions when they met for a religious festival where they would meet annually.

There were many sects of jews who met and celebrated, it I sonly logical that some would hang out with each other, instead of joining other groups.

The same way Christians today gather to celebrate different dates, there is no reason to think these traditions did not exist whether the man was historical or not, as the mythology and theology places him as being crucified at Passover

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by outhouse » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:31 am

neilgodfrey wrote:
It looks like you've been studying McGrath's avoidance tactics for responding to questions like this. :-)

I learned it from you ;) No just kidding. But you leave many unanswered questions yourself.


If we had a mythical core to the story, we should have a geographic center for the movement, why don't we?

When did the myth start?

Why did it become start spreading after 33CE ish and claim it was under Pilates rule?


Why did they claim it started at Passover ?


Why create a deity out of one of their oppressed peasants?



Sorry brother but mythicist are the ones leaving a trail of unanswered questions they never address. Not me.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5408
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:33 am

The myth started 200 BC. The myth started AD 40. The myth started AD 75. The myth started AD 145.

Or something like that.

And the myth started with or without a HJ. The HJ is not needed to explain the myth.

Are you suggesting that a peasant crucified at Passover makes for a bad story?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by outhouse » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:42 am

Peter Kirby wrote:The myth started 200 BC. The myth started AD 40. The myth started AD 75. The myth started AD 145.

Or something like that.

And the myth started with or without a HJ. The HJ is not needed to explain the myth.

Are you suggesting that a peasant crucified at Passover makes for a bad story?
Then may I present another question. When did the mythological core as a few claim start? I thought the context was pretty obvious.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by outhouse » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:45 am

Peter Kirby wrote:The myth started AD 40.

I would say 33 AD ish ;) in context to when the mythology started surrounding the man who was crucified. And yes continued for hundreds of years


Look at how Mary M started mythology for hundreds of years and in multiple traditions.

Ulan
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Ulan » Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:59 am

outhouse wrote:
Ulan wrote:A statement I didn't make. Now you are mixing things up. I was not talking about the setting of the story, but when and in which situation it was written, and that was a situation when pretty much all potential witnesses were dead. Which completely evaporates your grand "witness" statement.
Your missing the point.

The point is these possible witnesses managed to remember Pilate and Caiaphas and the temple in detail, there no reason why they would not remember the star of the show on a Passover.
You are talking about the women, right? Otherwise, gMark itself seems to discredit any witnesses. At least none of the disciples were present. The scenes with the Sanhedrin and Pilates don't have any witnesses by default, they are obvious story inventions.
outhouse wrote:Witnesses were still alive with Paul...
Witnesses for what? What is there in Paul's writing that is in need of witnesses? He is talking about his visions. The only "witnesses" he mentions seem to be other people who had similar visions. Which makes sense in an environment, where the typical meeting of the faithful seemed to involve getting in trance and producing either glossolalia or let Christ "speak" through the faithful. Which, by the way, produces another problem, as, according to Paul, Christ was still talking to his faithful and adding to his teachings in the 60's, which makes finding anything historical in that mess even more futile.
outhouse wrote:Witnesses were still alive as parts of what would be Mark existed.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on which parts Mark invented. The scenes with Pilate and the Sanhedrin are obvious, as this happened behind closed doors. Where do you draw the line?
outhouse wrote:Had anyone denounced it, those traditions would still be alive in oral traditions and there would have been people attesting to the opposite. Just the way we see with Paul. Paul was hated and loved and there were many traditions against him.
Well, it's obvious that Mark must have been accused of lying, which is why you have additions in gMatthew to counteract this opposition.

No, the witness part of your reasoning is very weak. If I were you, I'd stick to the "why Pilate" question. That's a much harder nut to crack for any mythicism hypothesis.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by GakuseiDon » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:08 am

The "maybe something else" response as an answer to close conversation makes me madder than a cut snake. Since I think nearly everyone agrees that there is no certainty in the conclusions of most lines of thoughts in this field, "maybe something else" is almost always true. But it shouldn't stop lines of thoughts built upon assumptions, even if those assumptions aren't certain themselves.

This is from Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus", page 277:
  • That some text has been forged, or interpolated, or altered by Christians even outside the canon is a caveat I encounter in scholarly analysis of docu­ment after document, to the point that it becomes frustrating; and it would be alarming in any other field. And yet, it's so common to this field that it is now simply taken for granted and thus often shrugged off. Already the fact that half the letters in the NT are recognized forgeries warns us against ever implicitly trusting any of the evidence we have. The fact that we can see the same and worse across the whole early history of Christian litera­ture and textual tradition only reinforces that conclusion. And that must effect our estimates of probability.

    Nevertheless, throughout this book I shall assume that any passage in the NT is not an interpolation, unless I cite or present a specific argument for it, or there is already unanimous agreement among experts (and thus no argument need be made).
Is it valid for a historicist or mythicist to proceed to built arguments based on the idea that any passage in the NT is not an interpolation, unless a specific argument is made for it, or "there is already unanimous agreement among experts"? I think it is, as long as we acknowledge that this is what we are doing. Agnostic views like Vinny's seem to me to have too many "maybe something else"s as conversation killers. Let's just acknowledge assumptions and move on.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

Ulan
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Ulan » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:13 am

GakuseiDon wrote:Agnostic views like Vinny's seem to me to have too many "maybe something else"s as conversation killers. Let's just acknowledge assumptions and move on.
:)

Well, yes, that's what everybody does. This doesn't mean Vinny is wrong. You will never know.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5408
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:16 am

If it weren't 'why Pilate' it would be 'why Herod' or 'why the Sanhedrin'. Wait... It is. All those things. Must be true?

If it weren't 'why Tiberius' reign' it would be another reign.

It's not as deep a question as it seems at first sight. And there are answers if slightly speculative. They have been mentioned often enough in this forum and the literature, so why do we pretend the discussion has not already advanced this far?

Posted on a phone.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Post Reply