The Historical Jesus vs. the historical...?

[Prophet]

So what is the point of this thread?

The point of this thread is the continuation of the forcible and violent debate equivalent of annihilation that Legion has been waging on the forum's vast supply of denialist imbeciles like Bunyip that has been going on for the better part of of a season over five or so threads. This is a point I unabashedly support.

 

[Bunyip]

The point of this thread is the continuation of the forcible and violent debate equivalent of annihilation that Legion has been waging on the forum's vast supply of denialist imbeciles like Bunyip that has been going on for the better part of of a season over five or so threads. This is a point I unabashedly support.

An excellent example of pidgeon chess.

 

[Prophet]

An excellent example of pidgeon chess.

One wonders if Bunyip is able to support this statement and one further wonders if he even knows what "pidgeon [sic] chess" means.

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

Hi........ I think that many of the miracles shown in G-Mark were real events that got exaggerated.

For example?

What do you believe was "exaggerated"?

~PEACE~

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As I stated, that the Nazarenes were a sect of the Essenes is an Essene claim, as follows:

At the time of Jesus, there were three distinct Essenian groups that played important roles in his life, and their religious practices and spiritual theology mirror in his teachings. They were:

• The Theraputae of Egypt; where the infant Christ and his family fled during Herods rein.
  
  
• The Essenes of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), the strict, celibate monastery of which John the Baptist was a part.
  
  
• The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel, the cooperative family village where Jesus lived and studied.

source: Nazarene or Nazareth?

However, we do have a Biblical reference to the Nazarenes as being a sect:

In the New Testament book of Acts, Paul is tried in Caesarea, and Tertullus is reported as saying:

"We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5)

What is a Nazarene

Pulp fiction.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well the difference is fundamental - nobody is relying on the historicity of Alexander or anyone else.

Academics studying ancient history do. That's sort of my point. There is much dispute over the extent to which we can use the Iliad, for example, as historical evidence. People build careers by arguing that certain people, events, etc., existed/happened. Most of this, however, remains amongst academics. To the extent people are interested in Alexander who aren't historians, they simply trust whatever book they get out of the library or from Amazon (or just Wikipedia). The historical Socrates has concerned academics at least as long as the historical Jesus and many a career has been dedicated to arguing that Socrates' believed X not Y, that Plato can be trusted but not Xenophon, etc. Marija Gimbutas not only spent much of her career arguing over certain interpretations of evidence from prehistory entailed pre-historic Matriarchy and Goddess worship, something that is still accepted by many a modern Goddess worshipper and feminist but which fell out of favor among scholars of prehistory beginning in 1969. Much of Wicca came from the Egyptologist Margaret Murray's publications on the witch-trials which are now known to be riddled with errors from start to finish. There are scholars whose specialty concerns historical figures we know from almost nothing other than legend such as Hypatia or one or other of the pre-Socratics. Most of the time, the public is unaware such debates exist, nor would they care if they knew. In some cases (the few mentions of druids in the literature, the examples of Murray and Gimbutas I gave) certain people have been greatly concerned outside of academia, but to the extent they are interested in establishing that their beliefs about history can be defended they have in general tried as much as possible to find a common ground with historians (for example, most Wiccans who have practiced their religion for years no longer believe that Gardner was actually initiated into a coven that survived from the "burning times" but do argue, with a certain degree of accuracy, that their traditions and practices go back for centuries, in some cases over 2,000 years).

"No scholar disputes the historicity of (such and such)",

Read Cynthia Eller's The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why An Invented Past Will Not Give Women a Future for one counter-example (her book, like many a journal article and other academic publications, has argued expressly that no serious scholars of prehistory believe in matriarchal prehistory any more, but there are still those who believe outdated scholarship is correct). For another kind of counter-example, read Ronald Hutton's Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain, which isn't really about the druids of history (he argues we can establish little to nothing about them), but rather how the desire to practice whatever it was/is that "druids" practiced has concerned certain members of the public for many centuries, and until fairly recently no small number of historians as well. In neither cases in which a religious-like motivation for a particular understanding of history or historical persons have those outside academia simply written off scholarship. Instead, they have altered their beliefs somewhat to incorporate scholarly consensus. So popular an author (and for many a serious Wiccan disdained as a sell-out wanting only to make cash off of teenage girls) as "Silver Ravenwolf" cites Hutton (professor of history and the foremost authority on Wiccan history as well as an expert on paganism, particularly Celtic and modern). For many a goddess worshipper, the former "historical" belief in a singular goddess in prehistory has become symbolic instead, and seen in various incarnations of goddesses from Demeter to Ishtar. This is because of repeated publications of the type "no scholars dispute X".

Only in the case of Jesus mythicism has their been both a widespread interest outside of academia a historical topic, a serious lack of studying before coming to conclusions, and a maintained belief that the 200+ years of study and thousands of specialists not been enough to support the conclusions reached in scholarship that isn't read but is dismissed.

 

[Bunyip]

Academics studying ancient history do. That's sort of my point.

So what? You were referring to your interactions on this forum - who has relied on the historicity of Alexander, but doubted the historicity of Jesus? It is a position that you have attributed to me many, many times (that I have certainty regarding the historicity of such and such, but doubt the historicity of Jesus) despite the fact that I have no such certainty, nor have I ever claimed to have.

So can you identify where a member you have interacted with on this topic has relied on the historicity of one ancient figure unquestionably, but contests the historicity of jesus?(that being what you claim occurs so often). You said that MANY PARTICIPANTS in the threads here did so - can you just give a few examples?

There is much dispute over the extent to which we can use the Iliad, for example, as historical evidence. People build careers by arguing that certain people, events, etc., existed/happened. Most of this, however, remains amongst academics. To the extent people are interested in Alexander who aren't historians, they simply trust whatever book they get out of the library or from Amazon (or just Wikipedia). The historical Socrates has concerned academics at least as long as the historical Jesus and many a career has been dedicated to arguing that Socrates' believed X not Y, that Plato can be trusted but not Xenophon, etc. Marija Gimbutas not only spent much of her career arguing over certain interpretations of evidence from prehistory entailed pre-historic Matriarchy and Goddess worship, something that is still accepted by many a modern Goddess worshipper and feminist but which fell out of favor among scholars of prehistory beginning in 1969. Much of Wicca came from the Egyptologist Margaret Murray's publications on the witch-trials which are now known to be riddled with errors from start to finish. There are scholars whose specialty concerns historical figures we know from almost nothing other than legend such as Hypatia or one or other of the pre-Socratics. Most of the time, the public is unaware such debates exist, nor would they care if they knew. In some cases (the few mentions of druids in the literature, the examples of Murray and Gimbutas I gave) certain people have been greatly concerned outside of academia, but to the extent they are interested in establishing that their beliefs about history can be defended they have in general tried as much as possible to find a common ground with historians (for example, most Wiccans who have practiced their religion for years no longer believe that Gardner was actually initiated into a coven that survived from the "burning times" but do argue, with a certain degree of accuracy, that their traditions and practices go back for centuries, in some cases over 2,000 years).




Read Cynthia Eller's The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why An Invented Past Will Not Give Women a Future for one counter-example (her book, like many a journal article and other academic publications, has argued expressly that no serious scholars of prehistory believe in matriarchal prehistory any more, but there are still those who believe outdated scholarship is correct). For another kind of counter-example, read Ronald Hutton's Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain, which isn't really about the druids of history (he argues we can establish little to nothing about them), but rather how the desire to practice whatever it was/is that "druids" practiced has concerned certain members of the public for many centuries, and until fairly recently no small number of historians as well. In neither cases in which a religious-like motivation for a particular understanding of history or historical persons have those outside academia simply written off scholarship. Instead, they have altered their beliefs somewhat to incorporate scholarly consensus. So popular an author (and for many a serious Wiccan disdained as a sell-out wanting only to make cash off of teenage girls) as "Silver Ravenwolf" cites Hutton (professor of history and the foremost authority on Wiccan history as well as an expert on paganism, particularly Celtic and modern). For many a goddess worshipper, the former "historical" belief in a singular goddess in prehistory has become symbolic instead, and seen in various incarnations of goddesses from Demeter to Ishtar. This is because of repeated publications of the type "no scholars dispute X".

Only in the case of Jesus mythicism has their been both a widespread interest outside of academia a historical topic, a serious lack of studying before coming to conclusions, and a maintained belief that the 200+ years of study and thousands of specialists not been enough to support the conclusions reached in scholarship that isn't read but is dismissed.

Example please of a member here doing so in the context of a discussion on the historicity of jesus?

I ask because much of your responses to me in earlier discussions attacked this imagined certainty that I do not have in other historical figures - it has in fact been the main thrust of a great many of your responses to me (when you are actually engaging the topic). Hence I suspect that all of the other times you have attacked this certainty in others, you are likely to have been attacking a product of your own imagination.

 

[Prophet]

So can you identify where a member you have interacted with on this topic has relied on the historicity of one ancient figure unquestionably, but contests the historicity of jesus?(that being what you claim occurs so often). You said that MANY PARTICIPANTS in the threads here did so - can you just give a few examples?

Bunyip again fails to understand the apparent conflict that Legion has brought up for the good part of a month, somehow inventing a scenario that never happens in its place. Legion is really saying that Bunyip and his ilk unquestionably accept on authority the same historical methods and reasoning they eschew in favor of radical skepticism in the case of Jesus and likely and other beings they are agenda-driven to reject as myth.

 

[Bunyip]

Bunyip again fails to understand the apparent conflict that Legion has brought up for the good part of a month, somehow inventing a scenario that never happens in its place. Legion is really saying that Bunyip and his ilk unquestionably accept on authority the same historical methods and reasoning they eschew in favor of radical skepticism in the case of Jesus and likely and other beings they are agenda-driven to reject as myth.

Correct, that is what Legion is saying.
The problem is that I do not accept unquestionably the historicity of any other figure, as I have said - Legion is attacking a certainty I do not possess, and have never either relied upon or claimed.

That is why it is called a strawman. And yes, Legion has indeed been attacking this very strawman for quite some time.

 

[oldbadger]

For example?

What do you believe was "exaggerated"?

~PEACE~

.......... the actions of Jesus which you deny as real. Which particular ones, you might ask...? Well, if you read through G-Mark, stop at every report which you think might be 'made up' and just think about that scenario alone for as long as necessary, bearing in mind that the folks who passed this event down could not help but elaborating or embellishing it. You can begin to perceive that an original and amazing act did occur which caused the storty in the first place.

Don't ask me to give it to you on a plate, because things given have less value than 'things' strived for. Yes?

 

[oldbadger]

....................... imbeciles ....................

Prophet clearly wants to wind the debate up to the usual insults, passed to and fro....?
Will he, later on, accuse other members of initiating the 'insults stages'??
But I enjoy some of his posts...... they make me smile.

 

[Prophet]

Prophet clearly wants to wind the debate up to the usual insults, passed to and fro....?
Will he, later on, accuse other members of initiating the 'insults stages'??
But I enjoy some of his posts...... they make me smile.

LOL one must wonder if oldbadger psychologically blocked out what happened when he cried foul about the insults last time. In case he did, I would remind him that Legion quoted about seven instances of oldbadger defending the same behavior he pretended to decry, proving his a hypocrite's brand of moral authority.

Edit: a quick search for posts containing the word "insult" by oldbadger reveals that he whines about receiving insults quite often actually while being at least as insulting with his attitudes and excusing insulting behavior he perceives to be in his favor. It seems I made a poor assumption in thinking that he'd reserve his failed hypocritical tactics for special occasions.

 

[Copernicus]

Myself, I lean towards mythicism. The evidence for a historical Jesus is exceedingly thin, and much of the argument depends on academic bullying--claiming that all of the respected scholars accept historicity. The more important question is: What does it mean for any allegedly historical figure to actually be historical? What do we have to know about that figure? What if the person who triggered the legend had actually been a woman, but her gender had been changed to make her legacy more credible? What if Jesus had actually just been a common criminal that some relative turned into an exaggerated cult figure? What if he was just some poor deluded sod who got crucified and then had a lot of false stories invented about him? There are all sorts of possibilities where some actual physical occurrence that was radically different from that depicted in scripture had occurred and then led to all sorts of distortions and exaggerations.

Now, let's just look at the OP a little more seriously. How can we believe in the historicity of Alexander the Great and not Jesus? Well, there were contemporaries of Alexander who wrote about him. He left family members that inherited parts of his empire. He changed the face and shape of the historical map. Indians wrote about the invasion of the Greeks. Greeks and others wrote about the events surrounding his existence. We have monuments to his existence that date back to those times. In short, there is corroboration that does not depend on mere text serving as religious scripture for a large number of followers. There was no vast copying machinery set up just to perpetuate belief in his historicity. People were not (to my knowledge, anyway) tortured or killed for denying his existence. He may have been alleged to have committed miracles by some gullible folk, but that is really not what sustained belief in his historicity for centuries.

So, no, I don't find good credible evidence for the existence of Jesus, just maybe that passing reference in Paul's writings to having met James, the "brother" of Jesus. And even that is debatable by historians who are not all that concerned about getting tenure in a history department.

 

[oldbadger]

LOL one must wonder if oldbadger psychologically blocked out what happened when he cried foul about the insults last time. In case he did, I would remind him that Legion quoted about seven instances of oldbadger exhibiting the same behavior he pretended to decry, proving him a hypocrite.

Oh..... goody goody! First, imbecile. Now, hypocrite! Prophet is warming up. He seems to have no idea about Historical Jesus, no clear opinion?
I wonder what Prophet actually accepts and rejects about HJ? He never told us, in all this time.
I don't think that he ever will....... ?

 

[Prophet]

Myself, I lean towards mythicism. The evidence for a historical Jesus is exceedingly thin, and much of the argument depends on academic bullying--claiming that all of the respected scholars accept historicity. The more important question is: What does it mean for any allegedly historical figure to actually be historical? What do we have to know about that figure? What if the person who triggered the legend had actually been a woman, but her gender had been changed to make her legacy more credible? What if Jesus had actually just been a common criminal that some relative turned into an exaggerated cult figure? What if he was just some poor deluded sod who got crucified and then had a lot of false stories invented about him? There are all sorts of possibilities where some actual physical occurrence that was radically different from that depicted in scripture had occurred and then led to all sorts of distortions and exaggerations.

Myself, I lean towards intelligent design. The evidence for the theory of evolution from my position of relative ignorance is exceedingly thin, and because I keep myself in a position of ignorance on purpose and I rely solely on radical skepticism, much of the argument against me forced to depend on scientific bullying--claiming that all respected scientists accept evolution. The more important question is: What does it mean for an allegedly scientific theory to actually be scientific? Do they actually have to DEMONSTRATE evolution???!!!! NO!

 

[oldbadger]

Myself, I lean towards mythicism. The evidence for a historical Jesus is exceedingly thin, and much of the argument depends on academic bullying--claiming that all of the respected scholars accept historicity. The more important question is: What does it mean for any allegedly historical figure to actually be historical? What do we have to know about that figure? What if the person who triggered the legend had actually been a woman, but her gender had been changed to make her legacy more credible? What if Jesus had actually just been a common criminal that some relative turned into an exaggerated cult figure? What if he was just some poor deluded sod who got crucified and then had a lot of false stories invented about him? There are all sorts of possibilities where some actual physical occurrence that was radically different from that depicted in scripture had occurred and then led to all sorts of distortions and exaggerations.

Now, let's just look at the OP a little more seriously. How can we believe in the historicity of Alexander the Great and not Jesus? Well, there were contemporaries of Alexander who wrote about him. He left family members that inherited parts of his empire. He changed the face and shape of the historical map. Indians wrote about the invasion of the Greeks. Greeks and others wrote about the events surrounding his existence. We have monuments to his existence that date back to those times. In short, there is corroboration that does not depend on mere text serving as religious scripture for a large number of followers. There was no vast copying machinery set up just to perpetuate belief in his historicity. People were not (to my knowledge, anyway) tortured or killed for denying his existence. He may have been alleged to have committed miracles by some gullible folk, but that is really not what sustained belief in his historicity for centuries.

So, no, I don't find good credible evidence for the existence of Jesus, just maybe that passing reference in Paul's writings to having met James, the "brother" of Jesus. And even that is debatable by historians who are not all that concerned about getting tenure in a history department.

What a good post!
Yes, accepted opinion by pros could be writ in about three sentences.
Yes, the story got embellished as it got passed around orally. Yes the story got embellished by zealous evangelists.
Yes, Jesus the person may have been a one week news-item that got patronised by such as Saul/Paul.

There certainly were two men called Jesus in the story, as supported by NT reports, and the more that I think about that, so the more I like (for one of the J's) outhouse's model of the 'meal for magic' itinerant with a couple of hangers-on, (a member who I have battered with repeatedly). I prefer to think of Jesus as a heal-for-meal itinerant, though.

 

[Bunyip]

Myself, I lean towards intelligent design. The evidence for the theory of evolution from my position of relative ignorance is exceedingly thin, and because I keep myself in a position of ignorance on purpose and I rely solely on radical skepticism, much of the argument against me forced to depend on scientific bullying--claiming that all respected scientists accept evolution. The more important question is: What does it mean for an allegedly scientific theory to actually be scientific? Do they actually have to DEMONSTRATE evolution???!!!!

Yes, and evolution was demonstrated long ago. Evolution can be demonstrated by showing that allele frequancies change overtime.

 

[Prophet]

Yes, and evolution was demonstrated long ago. Evolution can be demonstrated by showing that allele frequancies change overtime.

Yes, and historicity of Jesus was also demonstrated long ago, without regard to Bunyip's denialist platform which actively seeks to disqualify evidence ("Paul wasn't contemporary!") rather than supply a coherent story that explains all of it, much like evolution deniers who actively seek to disqualify fossils ("God put em there to test our faith!"), carbon dating ("You can't PROVE that it works!"), etc.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, and historicity of Jesus was also demonstrated long ago, without regard to your denialist platform which actively seeks to disqualify evidence ("Paul wasn't contemporary!")

Historicity is an inference - it can not be demonstrated. So no buddy - the historicity of Jesus has never been demonstrated. Kind of mind bogglng how you confuse historical inferences with scientific theories.
No wonder you stick to pidgeon chess.

 

[Prophet]

Historicity is an inference

As is science you goddamned imbecile.