The Best Case for Jesus

[andrewbos]

....

[Peter Kirby]

My main reason is that none of the gospel authors or authors of the letters reveals any understanding of the teachings nor takes any real interest in them.

This isn't completely true. Not only the ethics generally, but several sayings specifically, are repeated in the letters, either with no attribution, attribution to unknown "scripture," or attribution to a "saying of the Lord," which might be a revelation.

[Peter Kirby]

Speaking of other forums, the OP also brought another forum to my attention:

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread ... apparently

James Hannam = the Venerable Bede.

If it weren't an echo chamber, the thread might have more than just finger wagging... I can't piece together two bits of real criticism from the thread, only a chorus of disapproval and apparent disgust. I assume it's therapeutic.

[outhouse]

Speaking of other forums,.

Yeesh cant even have an opinion without being roasted


I have thick skin when a keyboard is involved, but I think they missed the memo that they can add to any aspect of this thread, instead of throwing cabbage from the bleachers.

[Peter Kirby]

Oh just one more thing.....

I am astonished by PK's notion of “objective”. Did Peter Kirby not complete grammar school science?

There is nothing remotely “objective” about Bernard's claim.

Bernard cites this passage, as evidence of a first century existence for Jesus of Nazareth:
Mark 15:21
και εγγαρευουϲιν παραγοντα τινα ϲιμωνα κυρηναι ον ερχομενον > απ αγρου τον πατερα αλεξανδρου και ρουφου· ϊνα αρη τον ϲταυρον·
αυτου

Of the 100K Jews living in κυρηναι, 2K years ago, how many were named ϲιμωνα ?

How many folks had children named αλεξανδρου ? ρουφου?

But, even if, for sake of argument, there really was only one male named Simon, from Cyrene, whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and even if we somehow assume that Mark knew them, how does that demonstrate, “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

Do you know, as a fact, who Mark was, when he lived, where he lived, and who he had met, before putting quill to papyrus? If not, then, what is your basis for accepting as “objective” data, this claim about Simon? How does this story confirm a first century existence of a human Jesus, son of YHWH? Do you possess evidence of a manuscript authored by Mark, prior to the middle of the second century CE, when Justin Martyr writes of the Memoirs of the Apostles, based upon Mathew, in turn derived from Mark?

http://news.discovery.com/history/archa ... 141013.htm

Who is Mario Di Sorte? Why should we believe his story about the torture and execution of the South African warriors, Bobby Carter and Alfred Crinall, but the release, unharmed, of fellow prisoner John Ashby, of the USAA, given that all three enemy soldiers had been captured concurrently from the same cave? I am not proposing that Di Sorte lied, or erred. I simply possess no “objective”evidence to support his assertion.

Bernard's claim is bogus, because the “evidence” upon which his claim of a first century human named Jesus, son of YHWH, is based on a fable, not credible data, and not even eye-witness testimony. When we read Philo of Alexandria's letter to Gaius, do we accept at face value Philo's account of Herakles' heroic exploits, or do we regard that bit of Philo's text as purely make believe?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p2163547

So, I will ask again: What is there about that topic at the other forum, that you found meritorious? What is there about Peter Kirby's response to Bernard Muller that you found adequate? How can you accept, or do you? Muller's claim, that gMark 15:21 represents "objective" first century evidence of the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth?

Yes, I agree with you, it is nothing to write home to mother about. Question is, was it worth writing at all? And, if not, why make a link to a thread in another forum that is insipid, or lacks merit?

I was keen to encounter your link, proudfootz, and thanks again for that, but not because of what Peter Kirby wrote, but because of what he didn't write: he should have, or someone should have, taken Bernard Muller's claim, and shredded it, for there is absolutely nothing in Mark 15:21, of any historical value, in terms of identifying the existence of a human named Jesus of Nazareth.

Reading that exchange, in which Kirby uncritically accepts Bernard's facile comments as if praiseworthy, without dissecting the comment about Mark15:21, to show how it could be related, in some convoluted fashion, to offer evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, I am reminded of Tracer Tong's equally bizarre assertion that Lucian of Samosata's Passing of Peregrinus, (which Tong-san had argued, was not a work of fiction, but rather a parody, implying, that therefore this text) represented objective evidence in support of an historical Jesus.

Hardly a coincidence. I think we have our smoking gun to show that avi = tanya = bcedaifu. I've had my suspicions, but part of me was waiting for proof, and the other part just didn't care. The posting style has always been the same. Of course Stephan Huller alerted us to this long ago.

Still, despite the circumvented ban, I'm granting a pardon. For now anyhow.

As to the content : http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 368#p28368

[Bernard Muller]

to bcedaifu,

Of the 100K Jews living in κυρηναι, 2K years ago, how many were named ϲιμωνα ?
How many folks had children named αλεξανδρου ? ρουφου?

I do not understand that argument. Why a "Simon" from Cyrene having two sons named Alexander & Rufus cannot be true? Do you think it is impossible to have a man from Cyrene with two sons by these three names?

But, even if, for sake of argument, there really was only one male named Simon, from Cyrene, whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and even if we somehow assume that Mark knew them, how does that demonstrate, “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

Why, if there was one male named Simon, from Cyrene (said to have carried Jesus' cross), whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and with "Mark" knowing them (at least the brothers), how that does not demonstrate “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

Cordially, Bernard

[Clive]

Because it is extremely suspicious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kumars_at_No._42

When talking about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the British Book Awards, Sanjeev Bhaskar stated that he chose 42 as the house number because in the Hitchhiker's series 42 features prominently as the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

[neilgodfrey]

Why, if there was one male named Simon, from Cyrene (said to have carried Jesus' cross), whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and with "Mark" knowing them (at least the brothers), how that does not demonstrate “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

There certainly is one such male and he certainly does appear in the story. The trick is in knowing how to tell when a story is narrating what really happened outside that story.

[Leucius Charinus]

Speaking of other forums, the OP also brought another forum to my attention:

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread ... apparently

James Hannam = the Venerable Bede.

If it weren't an echo chamber, the thread might have more than just finger wagging... I can't piece together two bits of real criticism from the thread, only a chorus of disapproval and apparent disgust. I assume it's therapeutic.

It's Tim O'Neil's HJ Rant Squad. Negative evidence against their HJ position is to be utterly destroyed, shredded, hung out to dry and soundly ridiculed. They have no time for negative evidence. For them, it's all glowingly positive.

You can make any case look week by showing that every atom of evidence is subject to at least some doubt. By this treatment you can then collect a lot of doubt surrounding what is really a strong case.

LC

[maryhelena]

Why, if there was one male named Simon, from Cyrene (said to have carried Jesus' cross), whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and with "Mark" knowing them (at least the brothers), how that does not demonstrate “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

There certainly is one such male and he certainly does appear in the story. The trick is in knowing how to tell when a story is narrating what really happened outside that story.

And the evidence that Simon, from Cyrene, was a historical figure is?

Symbolism in gMark might well be saying something other than what a helpful man Simon was.....

Cyrene was also the destination of many "Sicari" dagger men who fled the Roman legions at the time of the Jewish Revolt.

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

Cyrene a hotbed of armed resistance to Rome?

In 74 BC Cyrene was created a Roman province; but, whereas under the Ptolemies the Jewish inhabitants had enjoyed equal rights, they now found themselves increasingly oppressed by the now autonomous and much larger Greek population. Tensions came to a head in the insurrection of the Jews of Cyrene under Vespasian (73 AD, the First Roman-Jewish War)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrene,_Libya#Roman_period

=========
added later

The above is what one can gain by ditching the historicist interpretation of the gospel Jesus story. That story is set in the time of Pilate. The setting of the story is one thing. The history reflected in that story something else entirely i.e. history can cover a far wider time frame than the story setting to which its reflection is pinned.

The connection of Simon of Cyrene to the crucifixion story, the history of that city involving an insurrection of Jews during the time of Vespasian and the Jewish War, the crucifixion of Jews after that War, indicates that the Jesus crucifixion story involves insurrection against Rome. Options: (1) the gospel story is reflecting events of that Jewish insurrection of 70/73 c.e. and backdating them to the time of Pilate. (2) the gospel Jesus figure was connected to a zealot movement - as in Reza Aslan's Zealot.
(3) the connection of Simon from Cyrene to the gospel crucifixion story, is reference to an insurrection in 40 b.c.e. - an insurrection that led, 3 years later, to the execution of the last King of the Jews. Antigonus being hung on a cross and scourged.

All of these three options suggest that the gospel Jesus crucifixion story is being linked to an insurrection against Rome - and since there was no Jewish insurrection against Rome in the time of Pilate - the other two options are in play. Cyrene was involved in insurrection around the time of the Jewish War - but it was the insurrection of 40 b.c.e. that led, in 37 b.c.e., to the Roman crucifixion of the last King of the Jews.