As you should know some non-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a "small time" Jewish preacher. He never rose from the dead. Nevertheless, Jesus and his life inspired the world's largest religion. If Ehrman and Crossan are right about Jesus, then we must ask how Jesus became the lasting focal point of his followers. Why did the disciples preach that he was God's right-hand man and savior of the world if they knew he had suffered an ignominious death at the hands of the Romans never to be seen again?
The pieces of this puzzle don't fit together very well. It seems likely to me that Jesus would have been very famous in his day to inspire people the way he did. On the other hand, a very famous Jesus would have probably been noticed by the historians of the early first century, yet they say nothing about him.
Any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated.
How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Moderator: Moderators
- Paul of Tarsus
- Banned
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8403
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 3626 times
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #51I can understand that. But after grappling with this idea some time ago I used as my sig (on my first Forum) 'the truth is important'. It's up to the individual, but I would say that I would rather know the truth than keep a mystery. Choosing ignorance - refusing the truth because one likes the myth - is not the best use of the brain we were given.
There are plenty of mysteries - more than you could shake a stick at, and the pleasure of solving them doesn't destroy mystery, it only leaven room to get at the others.
Wanting to believe myths..it's not a good basis for living, in fact. I really enjoy stuff about ghosts, UFOs and other stuff like that. But I always keep in mind that it's Unexplained, not proven by anecdote.
I have actually found untangling the Gospels more interesting than the Myth. In fact 'problems' rather than 'mysteries' has attracted me more.
Everyone has the right to choose what they believe (inasmuch as anyone can choose) but 'I like myths' (usually on a selective basis) is not a good rationale to offer to the skeptic. I have found that keeping attached to reality is in fact empowering; one can look at all kinds of theories and anecdotes without having to 'slam the mental shutters down' on any challenge to a worldview.
There are plenty of mysteries - more than you could shake a stick at, and the pleasure of solving them doesn't destroy mystery, it only leaven room to get at the others.
Wanting to believe myths..it's not a good basis for living, in fact. I really enjoy stuff about ghosts, UFOs and other stuff like that. But I always keep in mind that it's Unexplained, not proven by anecdote.
I have actually found untangling the Gospels more interesting than the Myth. In fact 'problems' rather than 'mysteries' has attracted me more.
Everyone has the right to choose what they believe (inasmuch as anyone can choose) but 'I like myths' (usually on a selective basis) is not a good rationale to offer to the skeptic. I have found that keeping attached to reality is in fact empowering; one can look at all kinds of theories and anecdotes without having to 'slam the mental shutters down' on any challenge to a worldview.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1648 times
- Contact:
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #52[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]
Nonetheless, the OP is not asking the question you are trying to answer.
What you see as a 'problem' only appears that way. The thing about 'problems' is that 'solutions' are then required. I am skeptical regarding the solutions offered by non-theists.
But this - and the inconsistencies of the various authors stories - is for another thread topic.
The answer to this thread question has been answered. post#48
Nonetheless, the OP is not asking the question you are trying to answer.
What you see as a 'problem' only appears that way. The thing about 'problems' is that 'solutions' are then required. I am skeptical regarding the solutions offered by non-theists.
But this - and the inconsistencies of the various authors stories - is for another thread topic.
The answer to this thread question has been answered. post#48
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8403
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 3626 times
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #53True. That is not really the topic. I was answering one about the appeal of Mystery. And just how Jesus became famous - or rather how the church became popular, taking Jesus with it - is an intriguing question.
As I said earlier, the story has great appeal, sounding a real history rather than a myth and holding out an eternal salvation that no other religion of the time could compare with.
The success of Christianity (and Jesus) is not too difficult to understand. The question is, can we really believe it these days? That's the discussion; and the discussion cannot be sidelined because someone has suggested to us that Mysteries are rather nice.
As I said earlier, the story has great appeal, sounding a real history rather than a myth and holding out an eternal salvation that no other religion of the time could compare with.
The success of Christianity (and Jesus) is not too difficult to understand. The question is, can we really believe it these days? That's the discussion; and the discussion cannot be sidelined because someone has suggested to us that Mysteries are rather nice.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1648 times
- Contact:
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #54[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]
It isn't a case of sidelining any discussion. Anyone can start a thread on that subject.
My point is that to do so in this thread would be to change tracks.
Your points may indeed be valid, but that is not the thing in question re this thread.
It isn't a case of sidelining any discussion. Anyone can start a thread on that subject.
My point is that to do so in this thread would be to change tracks.
Your points may indeed be valid, but that is not the thing in question re this thread.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8403
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 3626 times
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2624
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 325 times
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #56Or, more precisely, both Ehrman and I have been influenced by John Meier and other scholars who have long maintained this position.Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 6:03 pmI see you've been influenced by Bart Ehrman.historia wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 2:41 pm
Historians use the historical method to write about the past. And the historical method, like any method, has certain epistemological limitations. In particular, the historical method only allows historians to infer what probably or most likely happened in the past.
Since miracles are, by definition, improbable, the historian qua historian cannot infer them as the most likely explanation. The Resurrection may well be true, but it simply lies beyond the methods of historians to establish it as an historical event. And so secular historians writing about the historical Jesus tend to just bracket it out.
I appreciate the point that Craig is making here. In Bayesian probability (which, to some degree, historical analysis parallels) even a hypothesis with a very low prior probability can, in theory, be overcome with a large enough amount of evidence.Paul of Tarsus wrote: ↑Sun May 09, 2021 6:03 pm
William Lane Craig countered Ehrman arguing that the presumed probabilities of past events are not the only factor that should be considered when assessing history. Historians should also take into consideration the evidence for recorded events. If that evidence is good enough, then events, including miraculous events, can be considered historical.
The problem, though, is that, in practice, historians rarely, if ever, have a large enough amount of evidence to make that determination with regard to miracles, which are, by definition, very low probability, ad hoc explanations. That is going to be especially true for events from the ancient world, since comparatively little historical evidence from that period has survived to the present.
And so, for all intents and purposes, the Resurrection lies beyond the realm of historical inquiry. Which, to be clear, does not entail the further conclusion that it is not true. This is just a limitation of our methodology.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 8403
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 3626 times
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #57I suspect that Lane- Craig is overlooking the matter of extraordinary evidence for supernatural (frankly) events. There's also the question of which mitacles is he prepared to accept? Hindu ones? Muslim ones? Where that ends up is in accepting a lot of anecdotes which really require better evidence and that doesn't advance the cause of Christianity at all, which I suspect is what he was after.
I can hear him now. 'Ah, well, the miracles attested in the Bible are better attested by history'.
Are they, now. And that of course has made it a different argument altogether: the reliability of the Bible.
I can hear him now. 'Ah, well, the miracles attested in the Bible are better attested by history'.
Are they, now. And that of course has made it a different argument altogether: the reliability of the Bible.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #58From Post 56:
Cept when Glenn Beck shows up, and we're just asking questions.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
"Historical inquiry" is clear in this regard - never has it been reliably shown that dead folks hop up and run em them off to town. In the entire history, of it, the historical inquiring.historia wrote: ...
And so, for all intents and purposes, the Resurrection lies beyond the realm of historical inquiry.
Cept when Glenn Beck shows up, and we're just asking questions.
If after two thousand years I can't show me I speak truth, it's perfectly fair for folks to run across town to a place that doesn't have bull biscuits on the menu.historia wrote: Which, to be clear, does not entail the further conclusion that it is not true.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
Or it's it a limitation of some folks to understand em them some other folks'll lie their faces off.historia wrote: This is just a limitation of our methodology.
The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14306
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 916 times
- Been thanked: 1648 times
- Contact:
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #59As I said - post #48 answers the thread question. There is nothing else to add to that.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: How did the historical Jesus become famous?
Post #60From Post 56:
When the theist can't show he speaks truth, he hides behind, "Well you can't show you I ain't me aspeaking it!"
If that's the state of the art in religious apologetics, all we need to do to counter such arguments is to shrug our shoulders and say, "You ever met you anyone that'd lie em them right there through em them their one tooth right there?"
We need merely look back through history and find us a confirmable report of someone, anyone, hopping them up in them, all them their resurrected glory.Paul of Tarsus wrote: ...
And so, for all intents and purposes, the Resurrection lies beyond the realm of historical inquiry.
"Well... well... ya can't show the one person there in the quadrillion that there did them died, well ya can't show he didn't hop him up after being him dead, so it is, ya can't say that since I can't show he actually did hop him up, that I ain't lying me about it" is what we've come us here to, folks.Paul of Tarsus wrote: Which, to be clear, does not entail the further conclusion that it is not true.
When the theist can't show he speaks truth, he hides behind, "Well you can't show you I ain't me aspeaking it!"
If that's the state of the art in religious apologetics, all we need to do to counter such arguments is to shrug our shoulders and say, "You ever met you anyone that'd lie em them right there through em them their one tooth right there?"
Ever notice how so much religious apologetics gets down to the methodology of em pologizing about their inability to show they speak em them the truth?Paul of Tarsus wrote: This is just a limitation of our methodology.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin