Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Many including me propose a man who lived below a peasant,

There were poor preachers in Galilee. Check
This proves there must have been a Jesus of Nazareth how?
There were presbyters in merry olde England, does that prove Prester John was a single historical person ?

^Oh, quit the old taking-one-point-made-by-a-historicist-and-pretending-that's-the-entire-argument method of discussion. That's just like a creationist who says "Oh so they found some fossil in Tennessee. Check. This 'proves' evolution how?". No, there's a lot more to it than that. It's a single point in a larger cumulative case.

'A lot more to it

Unfortunately for the 'historicist' camp, there is nothing to go on but half a dozen verses cribbed from old religious propaganda texts filled with ten thousand lies and fabrications.
You are the kind that claim you don't believe most of the NT's tall tales. I just disbelieve a half dozen more of these Jesus tall tales than you.
You can no more demonstrate that your favorite Jesus tales are real history, than you can demonstrate that Jesus raised up cadavers, or rose from the dead and ascended into the clouds in the sight of men.



Sheshbazzar

to cienfuegos,

Josephus: spurious

How do you know that? I guess: through the historical method.

1 Cor2:8: does not say Roman archons, he says the rulers of this age, which is more inline with the Ascension of Isaiah:

1 Cor 2:8 does not say the archons are demonic entities either. And the only times 'archons' are clearly identified is in Ro 13, where they are Roman authorities. There are a lot of other things in 1 Co 2 which point to 'archons' being (or at least included) human authorities (http://historical-jesus.info/68.html).
And 'aion' means "age" or "world", which is used often by Paul clearly in a secular sense (as in 1 Co 1:20 & 3:18).
How do you know the 'archons' are more in line with the like of Beliar?
Do you have evidence Paul knew about AoI?
I guess: through the historical method.

Romans 13 contradicts Mark which depicts a rigged trial. Therefore, Paul's statement:

Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.

Paul was not aware on Mark's gospel, and its invented trial.
And Paul never treated Jesus as a rebel against Roman authorities, not even called him King.

Cordially, Bernard

outhouse wrote:

cienfuegos wrote: you'll find historicists are not willing to accept an ignoble Jesus

Simply not true.

This is debated fiercely along the lines of socioeconomics of Aramaic Galileans in Nazareth. Many including me propose a man who lived below a peasant, this list is growing and lines are starting to be drawn between apologetics and anthropology.

Sheshbazzar wrote:

Many including me propose a man who lived below a peasant,

There were poor preachers in Galilee. Check
This proves there must have been a Jesus of Nazareth how?

Outhouse who has me on his Ignorance List postulates an "Anthropological Jesus". This variety of the HJ is another to be included in a growing spectrum of HJ's first identified in the The_Quest_of_the_Historical_Jesus by Albert Schweitzer. The problem I see with an Anthropological Jesus is that there is not even a fragment of an Archaeological Jesus upon which to base the anthropology.

Without any archaeology the Quest for the Historical Jesus may as well be, and in fact should be, conducted in Middle-Earth.




LC

^I never understand the argument from archaeological silence. What kind of archaeological evidence do mythicists expect us to have found by now? A foot-print? How would we know it was his? A coin or building inscription? Why would his name be on such things? Bones? Again, how would we know it was his? Ancient fishing boats in the Sea of Galilee? Oh wait we found one already! A graffiti saying "Jesus was here!"? Seriously? It's a very insignificant argument IMO.

Some are inclined to confuse their 'could have been's', and their 'its entirely plausible' imagined scenarios with being factual history,
...and then proceed into bumbling assertions of the veracity and 'historicity' of their Bible babble inspired imaginary scenarios.

Sheshbazzar wrote:Unfortunately for the 'historicist' camp, there is nothing to go on but half a dozen verses cribbed from old religious propaganda texts filled with ten thousand lies and fabrications.

That's a bit extreme. I agree that the gospels are well described as 'religious propaganda' with an intent to convert. But then so is the biography of L. Ron Hubbard on $cientology.com. And that, even though it's also full of lies and fabrications, still bears out the basic outline of his life - Hubbard was a larger-than-life eccentric author with a passion for sea travel and adventure. I don't see that the gospels are necessarily not of this sort of propaganda.

I also don't see that Paul's letters to the Corinthians and Galatians are best described as "propaganda" in the same sense the gospels are. Plus it's not only "half a dozen verses cribbed from old religious propaganda texts" from which the evidence comes. Jospehus' passages could well be only tampered with, and I'm not yet convinced that Tacitus wasn't simply re-stating common and accurate knowledge of his times (like you or I might make passing reference to the known existence of L. Ron Hubbard despite being a generation or two later, not eyewitnesses nor ever speaking to $cientologists etc.). As I've said many times before, if Christianity died out in the 2nd C and all we were left with was Tacitus' reference, I doubt many today would dispute the historical existence of the instigator of the Christian superstition executed under Pilate.

toejam wrote:^I never understand the argument from archaeological silence. What kind of archaeological evidence do mythicists expect us to have found by now? What kind of archaeological evidence do mythicists expect us to have found by now?
A foot-print? How would we know it was his? A coin or building inscription? Why would his name be on such things?

You really have to ask?
For a beginning, according to the NT texts 'Jesus' attracted thousands of followers during his life, His fame spread far and wide.
Yet outside of the highly fictional content of the NT, there is not a credible blip in history of anyone ever encountered this bible character in person. His entire existence is entirely hearsay from top to bottom. Even the Gospel writers and Paul never met the person that they composed their tall-tales about.
Acts gives it that during the first century 'the cross of Christ' was being widely preached, and thousands more were 'converted' with Christian 'church's' being established throughout the Mediterranean area.
The Cross of Christ, The Cross, The Cross, over and over and over again in these texts. Yet Archaeology finds no 'Crosses of Christ' on Christian buildings, no 'Crosses of Christ' on Christian monuments, and no 'Crosses of Christ' inscribed on sarcophagi until the middle of the 3rd century CE.
Christianity's presence is virtually non-existent, and without identifiable remnants in the Archaeological record for over two hundred years.
IF there were all these thousands of Christers, all so hot for NT the 'Scriptures', 'Sayings of Jesus', and THE CROSS of Christ, and preaching and teaching THE CROSS, Archaeologists ought to easily locate thousands of identifiably Christian inscriptions and cross images from the 1st and 2nd centuries. There are NONE.
The Christian 'history' we have been handed is a fraudulent reeking pile of shit.

Sheshbazzar

toejam wrote:

Sheshbazzar wrote:Unfortunately for the 'historicist' camp, there is nothing to go on but half a dozen verses cribbed from old religious propaganda texts filled with ten thousand lies and fabrications.

That's a bit extreme. I agree that the gospels are well described as 'religious propaganda' with an intent to convert. But then so is the biography of L. Ron Hubbard on $cientology.com. And that, even though it's also full of lies and fabrications, still bears out the basic outline of his life - Hubbard was a larger-than-life eccentric author with a passion for sea travel and adventure. I don't see that the gospels are necessarily not of this sort of propaganda.

L. Ron Hubbard existed. Known real people met him, interacted with him, his life and his writings are a matter of public record attested to by tens of thousands of first hand witnesses and public records, where he lived, what he owned, books he copyrighted ect.
For Jebus all there is are hearsay fictional reports from decades after his (alleged) life by unknown authors who never met him, inclined to use fiction to promote theological political agendas. That is one hell of a long cry from the first hand reporting and information we have on L. Ron Hubbard.

I doubt many today would dispute the historical existence of the instigator of the Christian superstition executed under Pilate.

Then your doubt lacks credibility because there sure as hell are a lot of people today who no longer buy the Christian line of crap. And the number that flatly reject the premise that there ever was such an instigator is increasing daily.