Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Leucius Charinus wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:....... Yet it was met with little cheer among the historicist, presumably either due to the framing of the investigation in the intro/conclusion or simply because I did not clutch at them more eagerly as the end all be all of the debate.

Yes I found your OP refreshingly objective in laying out the evidence without ramming home any obvious conclusions.

LC

Thanks LC, I appreciate it.

steve43 wrote:Occam's razor should be a major player here.

For Jesus to have been a historical figure, only 1 of 10 or so semi-independent ancient references to him need to be correct

There is no Slam Dunk.

Bernard Muller wrote:to maryhelena,

Bernard, you cannot establish historicity for the gospel related Jesus figure.

But this is just what I did on this forum, my website and my blog.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, you did nothing of the kind at all....

All you have done is present your interpretation of the source material. An interpretation is all you have - and then you claim that your interpretation of the source material is the interpretation that validates an historical position on the NT figure of Jesus.

maryhelena wrote: the interpretation that validates an historical position on the NT figure of Jesus.

This is true.


It is the educated interpretation of evidence that does make the case, for the historicity the man actually holds.

To deny that Jesus does not have historicity is insane, because you or anyone else is avoiding reality. like a creationist fighting the facts of evolution, the fight has been long over. You can question and deny all the evidence you want, but it will not change this below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


Since the 18th century scholars have attempted to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus, developing historical-critical methods for analysing the available texts. The only sources are documentary; in conjunction with Biblical texts such as the Pauline Letters and the synoptic Gospels, three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic.


There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically


That right there is reality. And like it or not, it has strength.


Please let the excuses and whining commence.


Now if you don't like it, simply try and create history and replace the current "standing" hypothesis.

Anyone can sit agnostically on the fence and deny evidence, anyone with no real education can try to tear the evidence away, and tear history down. But boys and girls, its those who create history that separate the men from the boys.

Please don't take this the wrong way. If one sits in the safety of the middle of the fence on these topics, and is just taking information in, and doesn't construct nor deconstruct history. That's not a bag position to take, there is something to be said for reserving judgment. The evidence should always be questioned and addressed, its the conclusions that make the difference.

outhouse wrote: There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically


That right there is reality. And like it or not, it has strength.


Please let the excuses and whining commence.


Now if you don't like it, simply try and create history and replace the current "standing" hypothesis.

You completely misunderstand what this is all about. I personally don't know any mythicist who is a mythicist because he or she "does not like" the fact that it is generally assumed that Jesus existed. I don''t know a single one who does not disagree with the fact that most people assume his existence.

It is not about "not liking" this fact, or "wanting" to get rid of Jesus, or hating Jesus or trying to wipe him from history.

neilgodfrey wrote: You completely misunderstand what this is all about


.

No sir. your whole reply did nothing but a pathetic attempt to attack me, instead of addressing the real obvious context of my reply.

You decided to avoid the context.

It is the educated interpretation of evidence that does make the case

The evidence should always be questioned and addressed, its the conclusions that make the difference.

outhouse wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: You completely misunderstand what this is all about


.

No sir. your whole reply did nothing but a pathetic attempt to attack me, instead of addressing the real obvious context of my reply.

You decided to avoid the context.

As outhouse would say, don't take this so personally.

Do you have an argument to demonstrate why and how my own argument was wrong or do you just say "You are wrong" and leave it at that?

crossposting from: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 36940.html
(found looking at referrers at my blog)

tanya wrote:Thanks for the link. Yes, good topic. Wasn't Peter Kirby the originator of this thread, here at RatSkep?

Actually I am not the same person as "Kirbytime" over at that forum.

tanya wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:Bernard Muller wrote:

the most solid incidental evidence about Jesus as a human on earth in the first century appears only in Galatians (1:19) and gMark (15:21) and Josephus' Antiquities (XX, 9, 1).

Good comment! Thanks for this objective criticism.

Kirby's reply to Muller was humble, but, was it accurate?

Perhaps it is all innocent, but this is basically sound-biting and filling the vacuum with what you want to see (you can continue to read in that thread what tanya sees in my post - its brevity due to being posted from my phone). Here is the fuller quotation:

Peter Kirby wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote:After thinking, since the beloved disciple in gJohn epilogue might have known about Mark's gospel and then, because of his age, could have pretended to have been a young man & an eyewitness during Jesus' ministry (around 30 CE), the evidence here for Jesus' historicity, and in the 1st century, is not on solid ground, to say the least.
The same goes for Aristion & presbyter John from Papias' writing.
That hurts, but therefore the most solid incidental evidence about Jesus as a human on earth in the first century appears only in Galatians (1:19) and gMark (15:21) and Josephus' Antiquities (XX, 9, 1).

Cordially, Bernard

Good comment! Thanks for this objective criticism.

The reason for mentioning fair-mindedness is that Bernard is capable of distinguishing, or at least earnestly trying to distinguish (if not always successful), between "stuff that could support my conclusion" and stuff that actually should be taken as genuine support. This is evident in the way that he handles the dismissal of other possible points of argument (gJohn, Papias, as shown by the full quote...) besides these three items mentioned, not in the fact that he gives some merit to said items. (Giving credit to those three items wasn't the thrust of Bernard's post either...)

I have been thinking lately about Lk 7:28 (also in Mt 11:11):
"I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." (RSV)
The first sentence could not have been written by a Christian, because every gospels placed Jesus much higher than John. The second sentence seems to be the antidote of the first, lowering John to a very low level, totally opposite of what the first one says. That is totally illogical and "forced" in my view, most likely damage control by a Christian hand for the first sentence. Furthermore, the first sentence is also in line with Lk 7:26 (also in Mt 11:9):
"[about John] What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet."
this time with no Christian "antidote".
If Lk 7:28a is not Christian, then there is a very good chance it came from Jesus himself.
I put that saying among the seventeen Jesus' sayings which I think are likely to be predominantly authentic http://historical-jesus.info/86.html
(please note I think all discourses and all parables attributed to Jesus in the gospels as inauthentic http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html).
Even if not from Jesus, that saying was written early on, at a time when Jesus, as a human on earth. had not been elevated yet from a humble man, as he is described in the Pauline epistles.
That is that saying had to be written before the gospels and therefore would be an incidental evidence it was known then that Jesus lived during John's ministry, or/and after John's death, that is in the first century, as dated by Josephus' Antiquities XVIII, V, 2.
I would like to hear some intelligent comments on that idea.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: That is that saying had to be written before the gospels and therefore would be an incidental evidence it was known then that Jesus lived during John's ministry, or after John's death, that is in the first century, as dated by Josephus' Antiquities XVIII, V, 2.

I took the liberty of highlighting the error in your reasoning. No such thing as "it was known then that Jesus lived" was 'known' by any of these writers.
It was believed by these writers,(see Luke 1:1) _none of which ever met Jesus_ that Jesus had lived during John's ministry.
There is a significant difference between actually knowing something through first hand knowledge and experience, and between simply being persuaded of and believing something that unknown and unidentified 'others' have alleged to have occurred.
It was a belief (Luke 1:1) not something that was known by any first hand knowledge. Critical thinking does not ignore such important distinctions.

.