Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Where agnostics and atheists can freely discuss

Moderator: Moderators

Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #1

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

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.

Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #11

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.
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.

So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?
Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.
Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?
I don't know. All I know it is fiction.
And you 'know' this how? Revelation?

User avatar
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 #12

Post by Goat »

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.
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.

So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?
Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.
Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?
I don't know. All I know it is fiction.
And you 'know' this how? Revelation?
It 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.
“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

Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #13

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.
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.

So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?
Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.
Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?
I don't know. All I know it is fiction.
And you 'know' this how? Revelation?
... Seems just a bit too 'miraculous' to me.
Do you claim that the tension and disputes between Paul and the so-called 'pillars of Jerusalem' are intentional fabrications versus biased history?

User avatar
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 #14

Post by Goat »

Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:
Jayhawker Soule wrote:
goat wrote:The thing is, when it comes to trying to figure out if there was a 'historical Jesus', it is ALL guess work.
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.

So, tell me: on what grounds do you argue that it is more reasonable to view Acts as intentional fiction?
Even it is wasn't 'intentional fiction', it certainly is not first hand knowledge of Jesus.
Please answer the question. In your opinion, was Acts intentional fiction or not?
I don't know. All I know it is fiction.
And you 'know' this how? Revelation?
... Seems just a bit too 'miraculous' to me.
Do you claim that the tension and disputes between Paul and the so-called 'pillars of Jerusalem' are intentional fabrications versus biased history?
No, 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. (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

Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #15

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

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.
OK. 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?

User avatar
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 #16

Post by Cephus »

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.
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.

Jayhawker Soule
Sage
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Midwest

Re: Was there a Jesus/Yeshua

Post #17

Post by Jayhawker Soule »

Cephus wrote:
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.
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.
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.

User avatar
Cmass
Guru
Posts: 1746
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Issaquah, WA

Post #18

Post by Cmass »

Jayhawker Soule Wrote:
I would argue that Acts and Josephus are sufficient to warrant a presumption of historicity.
OK, then argue it.
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 :yikes:

User avatar
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 #19

Post by Cephus »

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.
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.

User avatar
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 #20

Post by Goat »

Cephus wrote:
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.
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.
I would like to see something more than "Based on acts and josephus the historical Jesus exists'. like.. WHY for instance.

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

Post Reply