Was there a Jesus/Yeshua around whom and about whom the Christian narrative later evolved? Note: the issue here is one of historicity, not divinity.
I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.
Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #11And you 'know' this how? Revelation?goat wrote:I don't know. All I know it is fiction.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?goat wrote:Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.Jayhawker Soule wrote:You would do well to learn something about historiography. You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.goat wrote:The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.
So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #12It is a conclusion based on the implausibility of the 'road to Damascus' story. THere is also the little discrepancy upon his claim to be a pharisee, and a 'free man' (i.e. roman citizen). That combination is highly improbable, since to be born a 'free man', you have to have two roman citizen parents. Then being cured of blindness when someone lays their hands upon you?? Seems just a bit too 'miraculous' to me.Jayhawker Soule wrote:And you 'know' this how? Revelation?goat wrote:I don't know. All I know it is fiction.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?goat wrote:Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.Jayhawker Soule wrote:You would do well to learn something about historiography. You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.goat wrote:The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.
So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #13Do you claim that the tension and disputes between Paul and the so-called 'pillars of Jerusalem' are intentional fabrications versus biased history?goat wrote:... Seems just a bit too 'miraculous' to me.Jayhawker Soule wrote:And you 'know' this how? Revelation?goat wrote:I don't know. All I know it is fiction.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?goat wrote:Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.Jayhawker Soule wrote:You would do well to learn something about historiography. You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.goat wrote:The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.
So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #14No, I am claiming that the 'laying on hands' to cure blindness is myth making.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Do you claim that the tension and disputes between Paul and the so-called 'pillars of Jerusalem' are intentional fabrications versus biased history?goat wrote:... Seems just a bit too 'miraculous' to me.Jayhawker Soule wrote:And you 'know' this how? Revelation?goat wrote:I don't know. All I know it is fiction.Jayhawker Soule wrote:Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?goat wrote:Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.Jayhawker Soule wrote:You would do well to learn something about historiography. You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.goat wrote:The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.
So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?
I am claiming the story of the conversion on the road to Damascus is intentional fabrication. There are inconsistencies in the story. See Acts 9:7 vs acts 22:9.
I am claiming that Paul's background is implausible, since he is both a Roman Citizen , born of two roman citizen (born free).. and a Pharisee. I am saying that
his entire story , as depicted in Acts, has a ring of invention about it.
Acts was written for theological purposes. It certainly is not an unbiased source.
Also, it is acknowledged it was written at least 20 years after Paul's death.
Now, let us assume that the writer of Acts was TRYING to be as accurate as he remembered. (I think he was pushing a theological point, not trying to be accurate myself). But.. we have a book that was talking about this teachers experiences. The teacher is long dead. The teacher NEVER met this 'Jesus' person in the flesh, but only saw him in a 'vision'.
Not what I call very good evidence that "Jesus the man" existed.. I would call it evidence in the BELIEF in Jesus.. but not that the man existed.
The chain of evidence is too long and flimsy. There are just too many 'miraculous' elements, and there are some inconstancies. Even if the book was written in 100% good faith, it is too far removed from 'Jesus the man' to be considered evidence from"Jesus the man"
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #15OK. So am I correct in stating that you accept the existence of the Jerusalem sect and Paul's contentious efforts to legitimatize his Gentile mission?goat wrote:..., I am claiming that the 'laying on hands' to cure blindness is myth making.
I am claiming the story of the conversion on the road to Damascus is intentional fabrication. There are inconsistencies in the story. See Acts 9:7 vs acts 22:9.
I am claiming that Paul's background is implausible, since he is both a Roman Citizen , born of two roman citizen (born free).. and a Pharisee. I am saying that
his entire story , as depicted in Acts, has a ring of invention about it.
Acts was written for theological purposes. It certainly is not an unbiased source.
Also, it is acknowledged it was written at least 20 years after Paul's death.
Now, let us assume that the writer of Acts was TRYING to be as accurate as he remembered.
- Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #16The biggest problem with this remains that none of the sources are direct eye-witnesses of Jesus. Even if you want to assume that Josephus wrote those two passages in Jewish Antiquities (which is really only questionable for the second, the first is an out-and-out forgery), Josephus still wasn't born until after Jesus died. Therefore, anything Josephus or the writer of Luke/Acts has to say is still just heresay at best.goat wrote:I think the author of Luke/acts using Josephus as a source is feasible, which means Luke/Acts was written after 95 c.e. That certainly makes the works pseudo graphical in nature. The author of acts never claimed to have met Jesus either, but merely Paul, who never met Jesus in 'real life'. That makes it hearsay at best.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
- Location: Midwest
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #17I envy you your certitude ... no matter how irrelevant. At issue is the historicity of the Jerusalem sect and the tension between the leadership of that sect and Paul.Cephus wrote:The biggest problem with this remains that none of the sources are direct eye-witnesses of Jesus. Even if you want to assume that Josephus wrote those two passages in Jewish Antiquities (which is really only questionable for the second, the first is an out-and-out forgery), Josephus still wasn't born until after Jesus died. Therefore, anything Josephus or the writer of Luke/Acts has to say is still just heresay at best.goat wrote:I think the author of Luke/acts using Josephus as a source is feasible, which means Luke/Acts was written after 95 c.e. That certainly makes the works pseudo graphical in nature. The author of acts never claimed to have met Jesus either, but merely Paul, who never met Jesus in 'real life'. That makes it hearsay at best.
Post #18
Jayhawker Soule Wrote:
Thus far the only argument or discussion of substance has been provided by Goat with a bit of input from Cephus. Your first volley was to tell people to read Whealey and Kirby. Is that the extent of your "argument"? If you are arguing in favor of a historical Jesus then provide evidence.
Don't get me wrong, this is very compelling stuff, but I don't see you presenting any extraordinary evidence to support you OP:
OK, then argue it.I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.
Thus far the only argument or discussion of substance has been provided by Goat with a bit of input from Cephus. Your first volley was to tell people to read Whealey and Kirby. Is that the extent of your "argument"? If you are arguing in favor of a historical Jesus then provide evidence.
Don't get me wrong, this is very compelling stuff, but I don't see you presenting any extraordinary evidence to support you OP:
People who confuse their own bias with fact leave little room for discussion.
You would do well to learn something about historiography.
You would also do well to learn something about intellectual honesty and consistency since it was you who presented as fact what you now acknowledge as guess work.
I envy you your certitude ... no matter how irrelevant.
"He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord." Deuteronomy 23:1
- Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #19It's based on the available evidence, if you want to call that certitude, feel free. If you want to argue over whether two members of a group that believe in an invisible friend were fighting, that's up to you, I suppose, but it seems a bit silly to me.Jayhawker Soule wrote:I envy you your certitude ... no matter how irrelevant. At issue is the historicity of the Jerusalem sect and the tension between the leadership of that sect and Paul.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua
Post #20I would like to see something more than "Based on acts and josephus the historical Jesus exists'. like.. WHY for instance.Cephus wrote:It's based on the available evidence, if you want to call that certitude, feel free. If you want to argue over whether two members of a group that believe in an invisible friend were fighting, that's up to you, I suppose, but it seems a bit silly to me.Jayhawker Soule wrote:I envy you your certitude ... no matter how irrelevant. At issue is the historicity of the Jerusalem sect and the tension between the leadership of that sect and Paul.
The blind declaration of it, then hand waving the oppositions disagreements away just does not cut it with me.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella